directory_search_groups

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

With annotations already indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, the description adds valuable context: the required permission (Group.Read.All), the fields returned, and the fact that Teams teams are backed by groups. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third adds usage context and permission. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully compensates by naming the returned fields. It also covers permission, the Teams connection, and downstream usage, making the tool's behavior clear for an agent.

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 100%, with both parameters (query and max_results) already described in the schema. The description's phrase 'by name or keyword' aligns with the query parameter but adds no new syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find Entra ID groups by name or keyword.' It also lists specific return fields (group id, display name, type, description, member count) and uniquely notes that Teams teams are backed by groups, distinguishing it from sibling tools like directory_search_users and directory_list_group_members.

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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool: searching groups by name or keyword, and finding Teams teams. It also gives explicit follow-up actions ('Use the returned group id with directory_list_group_members or directory_get_group'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative search tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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