ad_user_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as substring search behavior and that results are SIDs. It doesn't repeat the annotations but complements them with the tool's resolution purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args list is clearly structured and every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter details, and context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (SIDs) and its purpose in the broader workflow. It could mention error behavior or edge cases, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description fully documents all three parameters: name as substring, limit as max principals with default 25, and target as Horizon target from config.yaml. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('AD users/groups by name to their SIDs'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly linking to entitlement_add, establishing its role as a prerequisite lookup.

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?

It provides clear context: 'needed to entitle a pool (entitlement_add)'. This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though no sibling tool appears to perform AD search, so this is adequate.

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