Kerberos Preauth Not Required

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine domain context beyond the annotation: these accounts are vulnerable to offline AS-REP roasting, which tells the agent how to interpret and prioritize results. No return format or record-count behavior mentioned, but an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: risk framing first, then the one actionable parameter tip. No boilerplate, and the highest-value information is front-loaded.

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 risk framing covers intent. But for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, missing guidance on `limit` truncation and on what happens when `base` is omitted (whole domain?) leaves a real operational gap.

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 must carry all three parameters. It only explains `base` (a DN) and says nothing about `limit` (silently defaults to 100, implying truncation) or `domain` (presumably for multi-domain selection). Two of three parameters remain opaque.

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: "list users not requiring Kerberos pre-authentication." The attribute is distinctive enough that an agent won't confuse it with password_not_required or never_expires_password, but the description never names those near-neighbours to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

"Pass `base` (a DN) to scope to an OU" gives one usage instruction, and the AS-REP roasting note implies the use case is a security audit. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as search_ldap for custom filters.

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