Find Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior — wildcard matching syntax and the fact that omitting `string` matches every contact, which is a non-obvious blast-radius signal. It stops short of describing result capping or how `limit` truncates results.

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 purpose then the parameters that change scope. No filler; each clause conveys a distinct search semantic.

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 needn't be explained, and the wildcard/scope semantics are well covered. However, for a paged search tool, the absence of any mention of `limit` behavior and `domain` targeting leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 carries the full burden, and it covers only two of four parameters: `string` (attributes matched, `*` wildcards) and `base` (DN subtree). `limit` and `domain` are left completely undocumented anywhere, including whether `domain` selects a different domain controller or naming context.

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 (find) and resource (AD contact objects) plus the searchable attributes (cn/mail/displayName), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling finders like find_users, find_groups, and find_computers. An agent can route to it without inspecting the schema.

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?

It explains the behavior of the optional filters (no `string` returns everything, `base` narrows to a subtree), which is useful invocation guidance. But it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as search_ldap or get_by_dn, which are plausible substitutes for a broad LDAP-style lookup.

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