Find Users

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description adds useful search behavior: ANDed criteria, wildcard matching, city/state/country attribute mappings, and base-subtree restriction, but it omits limit behavior and other execution details.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by matching semantics. There is no filler or repetition.

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 not be described, and readOnlyHint covers safety. However, with 11 undocumented schema parameters, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter-level documentation.

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% across 11 parameters. The description clarifies base and the city/state/country mappings, but does not explain sam, mail, name, surname, department, domain, or limit semantics beyond the general 'by field' 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: find AD users by field. This clearly distinguishes it from group/computer/contact searches, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from specialized siblings such as find_inactive_users or search_ldap.

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?

Explains how criteria combine (AND) and how to use wildcards and the base parameter, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose find_users instead of get_user, find_inactive_users, or search_ldap.

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