Search Ldap

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

readOnlyHint=true already conveys the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'read-only'. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the filter is passed verbatim, so malformed filters fail rather than being normalized. However, it does not disclose error behavior on invalid filters, result-volume/pagination implications, or that limit=0 means unbounded.

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 escape-hatch framing and the typed-tool alternative are front-loaded in the first two sentences; the examples in the third earn their place by showing two distinct non-obvious query shapes. No filler.

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 need not be explained, and the filter semantics are well covered. Gaps are the undocumented `domain` parameter and no note on behavior when the filter matches a very large result set.

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 80%, so most params are already documented. The description nonetheless adds real meaning for the critical parameter by specifying RFC 4515 validity, pre-escaping responsibility, and two concrete filter examples. It does not cover the `domain` parameter, which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('run a raw LDAP search with a custom filter') and immediately frames it as a power-user escape hatch relative to the typed sibling tools. An agent can distinguish it from find_users/find_groups without opening any schema.

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 names the condition for use ('when the typed tools (`find_users`, `find_groups`, ...) don't cover a query') and names those alternatives directly. The implicit inverse — use the typed tools for covered queries — is unambiguous.

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