Expired Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful semantics of the filter (past accountExpires, never excluded), but says nothing about result volume, default limit behavior, or multi-domain resolution.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core predicate before the scoping note. No wasted words, though the second sentence is the only parameter information provided and could have been extended cheaply.

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 values need no explanation, and the core filter is unambiguous. However, two of three parameters and the default result cap are undocumented, leaving real gaps for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It only explains `base` (a DN scoping to an OU); `limit` and `domain` are entirely undocumented, and even `base` gets no format example or default-scope statement.

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 users) and pins the predicate precisely: accountExpires in the past, excluding 'never'. That distinguishes it from never_expiring_accounts, though it does not name the sibling outright.

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 exclusion of 'never'-expiring accounts implies usage context, and 'Pass `base` (a DN) to scope to an OU' gives one usage pattern. There is no explicit when-to-use versus never_expiring_accounts or find_inactive_users, and no guidance on the default unscoped behavior.

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