search_ad_users_or_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates that this is a search operation and demonstrates filter behavior with examples, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, read-only guarantees, or any side effects. The examples add value but the behavior beyond the schema is not fully exposed.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a practical downstream use note, and a compact set of example filters. Every section earns its place and the most important usage detail is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with an optional filter JSON parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the main filter fields, examples, and the key downstream use of the id field. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could have mentioned pagination behavior or the distinction from get_ad_user_or_group.

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?

Although the schema already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful filter semantics: it lists common filter fields (name, login_name, group, domain) and gives concrete JSON examples for login, display name, and groups-only searches. This goes beyond the schema's single example.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for AD users and groups in the Horizon environment.' It clearly distinguishes this from the singular sibling get_ad_user_or_group by emphasizing plural search and its use for locating IDs used in entitlements.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the result ('Use the returned id field when setting pool entitlements') and shows how to construct filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the usage context is strong.

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