List Fine Grained Password Policies

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds real context: it names the LDAP source (msDS-PasswordSettings under CN=Password Settings Container), warns that extra directory rights may be required, and discloses the empty-list fallback when the container is unreadable. That fallback behavior is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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 purpose, then the access caveat. Zero filler and nothing repeated from annotations.

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 shape needs no explanation, and the description covers the key failure mode (empty list on unreadable container). The main remaining gap is the undocumented 'domain' and 'limit' parameters, which matters for a multi-domain call.

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% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The 'limit' pagination behavior and whether 'domain' selects the base DN for the container lookup are left entirely undefined, so an agent must guess at both.

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 ('List fine-grained password policies (PSOs)') and adds the underlying object type, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_password_policy. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 '(audit)' tag and the read-only framing imply when the tool is useful, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_password_policy (default domain policy) or which domain to target. Usage is implied, not guided.

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