search_deviances_by_ad_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search all deviances', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or potential side effects. Pagination behavior is not mentioned despite pagination parameters. The body description says 'Validates POST /...' which contradicts typical search semantics and could mislead about the HTTP method.

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 description is extremely concise: one main sentence plus a critical usage note. Every word serves a purpose, and the main functionality is front-loaded. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (including a nested body), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too short. It does not explain pagination behavior, how to interpret results, or when to use date filtering. The description provides a profileId usage hint but leaves many contextual gaps that would require additional documentation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for profileId by explaining it selects a lens, not a container. However, the body parameter description is minimal (just referencing the endpoint) and does not clarify the meaning of dateStart, dateEnd, or showIgnored beyond schema names. The note about profileId is helpful but not enough to raise the score.

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 'Search all deviances by profile by checker by AD object', specifying the verb (search) and resource (deviances) with three filtering dimensions. The note about profileId being a lens not a container adds precision, and the name itself differentiates from sibling tools that list deviances by other criteria (e.g., list_deviances_by_checker, list_deviances_by_directory).

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 includes a usage note: if the user has not specified a profile, call get_preferred_profile first and use its preferredProfileId. This provides some guidance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., list_deviances_by_checker, search_events). The context of use is implied but not fully delineated.

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