provider_search_ldap_groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation and the raw endpoint path — no mention of LDAP configuration requirements, whether matching is exact/substring/wildcard, or what the results look like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two lines are redundant restatements of the tool name, and the raw endpoint path is already mirrored in the annotation title. Roughly half the text is duplicated information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate that matching LDAP groups are returned (and in what form), and it should note the prerequisite that LDAP must be configured. For a search endpoint whose value depends on the returned group records, this leaves a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'q' parameter, so the schema already documents it as a search string, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description says 'group(s)' (plural) while the schema accepts one string, but it adds no matching semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Search LDAP Groups' / 'Searches LDAP for given group(s)', which unambiguously identifies the operation and implicitly separates it from provider_search_ldap_users. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling group-lookup tools such as provider_query_groups or identity_search_groups, so the sibling differentiation is only name-based.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use LDAP search versus the local group query tools (provider_query_groups, identity_search_groups) or on prerequisites such as LDAP being configured for the organization. The only hint of usage is the phrase 'for given group(s)', leaving the agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.