Never Expiring Accounts

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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the filter is on `accountExpires` with sentinel values 0 and 9223372036854775807, which is non-obvious LDAP semantics. It doesn't mention pagination or the default result cap, but the output schema covers returns.

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, front-loaded with the core predicate before the sibling disambiguation and the parameter hint. No filler, and the parenthetical '(not password)' prevents the most likely confusion immediately.

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 and readOnlyHint remove the need to explain return shape or safety, and the filtering semantics are well covered. However, with zero schema description coverage, the unmentioned `limit` and `domain` parameters leave real gaps for a tool that no required params are needed to call but that may behave unexpectedly at scale or across domains.

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 parameter meaning. It documents `base` as a DN and its scoping role, but says nothing about `limit` (default 100) or `domain` (multi-domain targeting), leaving two of three parameters opaque to an agent that can't read descriptions in the schema.

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 whose account never expires) and disambiguates against the near-identical sibling by naming it: 'Distinct from never_expires_password, which checks the password-never-expires UAC flag instead.' It even gives the exact underlying attribute and sentinel values, so an agent knows precisely what the tool returns.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with the closest alternative (never_expires_password) and explains the mechanism difference, plus notes that `base` scopes to an OU. It's clear when to pick this over the sibling, though it doesn't state exclusions like 'don't use for password-expiry questions' or mention interactions with the other expired/inactive-user tools.

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