search_ad_users

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant. The description does add the workflow context that this feeds add_entitlement, but says nothing about matching semantics, truncated results when limit is hit, or AD lookup latency.

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 sentence with the read-only marker front-loaded, the action next, and the workflow purpose last. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description usefully discloses what comes back (SIDs) and why the call matters. Minor gap: it doesn't note that results may be truncated by limit, which an agent should know before feeding SIDs into add_entitlement.

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% – name, limit and target are each documented in the schema, including the default of 25 and the config.yaml origin of target. The description's 'by name' merely restates the required parameter, adding no syntax or matching detail beyond it.

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+resource ('Resolve AD users/groups by name') and the output form ('to their SIDs'), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can distinguish this from list_entitlements or add_entitlement without opening the 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?

It names the downstream consumer explicitly ('needed to entitle a pool (add_entitlement)'), so the agent knows this is a prerequisite step rather than a standalone listing. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., if you already have a SID), so no full 5.

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