Disabled Users

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the exact flag being matched, that base scopes to an OU, and that extra_filter is ANDed and must be pre-escaped — a real correctness hazard. It stops short of mentioning the default limit of 100 or any truncation behavior, which matters for an enumeration tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the definition, then the sibling disambiguation, then the parameter guidance. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the tool's core semantics and filter-safety caveat are covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/domain parameters and any pagination or truncation note for a bulk listing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it only partially does: base is clarified as a DN and extra_filter as a raw pre-escaped LDAP clause. The limit and domain parameters get no mention at all, so the agent must infer their meaning and defaults from bare schema types.

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 specific verb and resource ('List disabled user accounts') and even grounds it in the LDAP implementation detail (userAccountControl flag 2), so the agent knows exactly which predicate defines membership. The second sentence explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling is_disabled, which otherwise looks near-identical.

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?

Names the alternative tool (is_disabled) and the condition that selects this one: bulk enumeration of disabled accounts versus a single-user check. It also gives the two narrowing strategies (scope by OU via base, AND an extra clause via extra_filter), but does not state when this tool is the wrong choice, e.g. relative to locked_users or find_inactive_users.

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