Never Expires Password

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: the exact flag being audited and the requirement that extra_filter be pre-escaped, which is important for correct invocation.

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 paragraphs with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by immediately useful audit context and parameter guidance.

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?

The description gives enough to call the tool correctly for the most important filtering parameters, and an output schema exists for return values. Still, with 0% schema description coverage, the omission of limit and domain semantics is a meaningful completeness 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains base as a DN for OU scoping and extra_filter as an ANDed raw LDAP clause, but it leaves limit and domain 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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing users whose password never expires, with the exact userAccountControl flag. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling never_expiring_accounts.

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?

Frames the tool as a common security-audit check and explains how to scope with base or extra_filter. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over sibling audit tools such as never_expiring_accounts or password_not_required.

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