Get Ou

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses that matching is exact rather than fuzzy, but says nothing about behavior when the identifier does not resolve (error vs empty result).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the input contract appended. No wasted words, though the parenthetical qualifier reads slightly awkwardly.

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. The remaining gaps are the undocumented `domain` parameter and not-found behavior, both minor for a simple single-object read.

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 burden. It clarifies that the required `identifier` accepts either a bare OU name or a full DN and that matching is exact, which is genuinely valuable, but the second parameter `domain` is never mentioned.

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 ('Get a single AD organizational unit') and constrains scope to one object, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like find_ous. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 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?

The '(exact)' qualifier implies this is a lookup rather than a search, hinting that find_ous is the alternative for partial matching, but the description never states when to prefer one over the other. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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