Get By Dn

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 a genuine behavioral fact beyond that: it 'Returns None if the DN does not exist,' which is important for an agent deciding how to handle a miss. It does not mention permission requirements or the effect of the optional `domain` selector, so 4 not 5.

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, all front-loaded: the core action first, then the motivating use case, then the miss behavior. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 and annotations cover read-only semantics, so the description needn't explain return structure. The main gap is the unexplained `domain` parameter, which matters for a tool that says it fetches 'any AD entry' in what may be a multi-domain setup.

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 has to compensate. It clarifies that `dn` means a distinguished name and that any AD entry type is valid for it, but the optional `domain` parameter is never mentioned and its scope (which domain the DN is resolved in) is left entirely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch any AD entry directly by its distinguished name (DN).' That clearly separates it from typed lookups like get_user or get_group, which require a different key. It stops short of naming those siblings or explaining when a DN-based fetch beats search_ldap, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives a concrete use case – resolving DN-valued attributes such as a user's `manager` or a group's `managedBy` into full records – which tells an agent exactly which situation selects this tool. It does not state exclusions or explicitly name `search_ldap`/`get_user` as alternatives, so it is clear context without routing.

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