ad_search_computers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: no indication of substring vs exact matching, whether `query` is a plain string or a filter expression, what happens on zero results, or how `limit` truncates. The [READ] tag is the only behavioral signal.

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 short sentence with the category and [READ] marker front-loaded, so an agent scanning many AD tools can classify it instantly. The bracketed tags are slightly noisy but functionally useful for grouping.

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 no explanation, but for a search tool with three parameters and zero annotation coverage the description is too thin. Matching semantics, result ordering, and pagination/limit behavior are all missing, which is exactly what an agent needs before issuing a fuzzy query.

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 does clarify the most important one — `query` matches against name, OS, or OU — which is genuine added value, but `limit` and `correlation_id` are left entirely undocumented and matching syntax is unspecified.

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 (search) plus resource (computers) and enumerates the searchable facets: name, operating system, OU. That facet list implicitly separates it from ad_list_computers (enumerate) and ad_get_computer (single object), but neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over ad_list_computers, which is the closest alternative and appears right next to it in the sibling list. The [READ] tag implies safe lookup but nothing tells the agent when a search is warranted versus a plain listing.

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