Search Microsoft Learn

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: it clarifies the tool queries external Microsoft documentation and that results are 'passages, each with its page title and link', setting expectations for an open-world read. It doesn't discuss rate limits or result limits, hence not a 5.

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?

Purpose and usage come first, then the alternative routing and return shape. The middle enumeration of AD topics is longer than strictly necessary but does usefully bound the searchable scope, so it earns its place. Slightly verbose but well 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?

With an output schema present, the return values needn't be detailed, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the usage routing, content scope, and result shape, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('What to look up, in plain words'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description implies the input is a natural-language lookup but adds no syntax, formatting, or example beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the Microsoft Learn documentation') and enumerates the subject scope (AD DS, LDAP, schema, Group Policy, LAPS, delegation, Recycle Bin). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search`, which handles attributes and policy settings, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('to answer how something in Active Directory works before or instead of reading a domain') and names the alternative with its triggering condition ('To find an attribute or a policy setting, use search'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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