ad_get_ou_protection_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The [READ] tag does assert non-mutating behavior, which is worth credit, but nothing is said about required permissions (e.g. reading adminSDHolder-protected objects), whether the status is per-object or inherited, or what a null/unset identity means.

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?

A single compact line with the category tag and read-only marker front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete.

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 spelled out, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the agent guessing about identity formats and permission requirements. It also switches to Portuguese inside an otherwise English toolset, which adds a small comprehension cost.

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% — both parameters have titles only, with no format hints for "identity" (DN, GUID, sAMAccountName, or canonical name?) and no explanation of "correlation_id". The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Consultar", i.e. check/read) with a specific resource: an OU's accidental-deletion protection status. A bracketed domain tag ([Organizational Units]) and [READ] further scope it. It does not, however, name its write-side sibling ad_set_ou_protection as the counterpart, so the reader must infer the pairing from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus ad_get_ou (which may also surface attributes) or ad_set_ou_protection. The [READ] tag implies it is a non-mutating lookup, but no prerequisites, frequency, or exclusions are offered.

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