Not Delegated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by framing the output as a *risk* finding and explaining the misconfiguration pattern being detected. It does not address pagination behavior or how the flag manifests in results, but the output schema presumably covers shape.

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?

The 'Risk:' prefix front-loads the tool's category, then three short sentences deliver purpose, audit trigger, and the key parameter hint. Nothing is redundant and nothing important is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint set, the description needn't explain return values or safety. It covers the risk semantics and OU scoping well; the only shortfall is the unaddressed `limit` and `domain` parameters.

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 carries the full burden, and it only documents `base` (a DN scoping to an OU) in a way that genuinely adds meaning. `limit` and `domain` are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a real gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 names the specific resource (accounts flagged 'sensitive and cannot be delegated') and the verb (list), which resolves the ambiguity of the terse name `not_delegated`. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (audit_admin_accounts, find_admin_count_accounts, get_privileged_groups), though it does not explicitly name an alternative it must be distinguished from.

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?

It gives an explicit audit trigger: use this when a sensitive privilege was granted without also excluding the account from delegation, or vice versa. It also states the scoping mechanism via `base`. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in overlapping cases.

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