Find Ous

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add search-behavior context. It contributes the wildcard-in-name behavior and the base-DN scoping model, but is silent on what happens when `name` is omitted, how `limit` (default 100) affects results, and whether results are truncated or paginated.

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 action and immediately followed by the scoping knob; nothing is padding. The phrasing "matches `ou`" is slightly terse/ambiguous (attribute name vs. parameter) but does not waste space.

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 presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and readOnlyHint covers safety. But with four undocumented schema parameters and no input-schema descriptions, an agent still cannot tell what `domain` does or how `limit` governs results — meaningful gaps for a search tool with 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partly discharges it: `name` (matches `ou`, wildcards allowed) and `base` (a DN) are explained, which are the two decision-relevant params. `limit` and `domain` — half the parameters — get no explanation at all, including how `domain` interacts with `base`.

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 ("Find AD organizational units (OUs) by name") and adds the wildcard matching behavior, which distinguishes it as a search rather than a single-object fetch like get_ou. It stops short of naming its closest siblings (find_empty_ous, get_ou, get_ou_contents), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 second sentence gives real scoping guidance — pass `base` to narrow to a parent OU versus searching the whole domain — which implies the when-to-use context. However, no alternative sibling tool is named and there is no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., when to prefer get_ou or find_empty_ous).

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