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

Annotations only say read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the client and sign-in constraint, branching behavior by environment count (single → views, multiple → status choose_environment with ask_user), error codes DATAVERSE_NOT_AVAILABLE and DATAVERSE_CONSENT_REQUIRED with admin_consent_url, and ingest-time geocoding of address-only rows.

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?

Front-loaded with the client constraint and core purpose, and nearly every clause carries information. It is dense—heavy use of parentheticals and semicolons in the return-field and consent sentences—but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description usefully previews the returned view fields and point_readiness sampling, and it closes the loop with the follow-up tool and two failure-mode routes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining the three-way branching effect of omitting vs. supplying environment_url and the choose_environment/ask_user outcome for multiple environments.

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 ('lists the Dynamics 365 account views the signed-in user can read') plus the outcome ('accounts import without a file'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like import_dataverse_view and request_account_upload.

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?

Explicitly scopes the audience ('Microsoft Copilot only (Entra sign-in)') and names the fallbacks for other clients ('use request_account_upload ... or list_designer_projects'), plus the next step 'import_dataverse_view(environment_url, view_id)'. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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