ad_user_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that the tool returns SIDs, performs substring matching ('Name substring to search for'), and uses a configurable target. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it lacks details on failure modes or edge cases.

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 succinct and well-structured. The first line immediately states the purpose, and the Args list is compact with no extraneous text. Each sentence earns its place, balancing clarity and brevity.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool resolves (SIDs), when to use it (before entitlement_add), and all parameter meanings. The return value is implied by 'resolve to their SIDs', and the absence of pagination or error details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: 'name' is a substring, 'limit' is the maximum number of principals with a default, and 'target' refers to a Horizon config entry. These explanations add semantics that the schema's bare type definitions do not convey.

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 the tool's function: 'Resolve AD users/groups by name to their SIDs'. It uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('AD users/groups'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on AD directory search. The reference to 'entitlement_add' further clarifies its specific role in the workflow.

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 provides clear context by stating it is 'needed to entitle a pool (entitlement_add)', which tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar for exclusionary guidance.

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