provider_search_ldap_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond the name and endpoint, and does not explain LDAP configuration requirements, result limits, pagination, or search semantics.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, but it repeats the title line and endpoint already present in the annotations. It is not verbose, but the repetition means not every line adds unique value.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still lacks usage context and any sense of what the search returns or how results should be interpreted.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'q' is documented as the LDAP search string. The description does not add syntax, matching behavior, or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching LDAP users. It is distinguishable from the sibling provider_search_ldap_groups by the word 'users', but it does not explicitly call out that distinction or name alternatives.

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 this tool versus related siblings such as provider_search_ldap_groups, provider_query_users, identity_search_users, or provider_sync_ldap. The description only restates the search operation without context or exclusions.

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