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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: exact matches rank first, solution bodies are excluded, and empty results indicate no indexed record rather than no fix. This adds significant operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three focused sentences: purpose and ranking, usage context, and return format. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 four parameters (one required, two enums) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior, ranking, search scope, and output fields. It explains what the tool returns and how results are ordered, leaving no obvious gaps 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the ranking logic (how query is matched) and output format (compact records with slug, status, etc.), which goes beyond the parameter 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 clearly states the tool performs 'ranked search over the Copilot Studio Friction Index', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing ranking order and explicitly noting that solution bodies are not searched, contrasting with tools like lookup_error or list_frictions.

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 advises using this tool when the user describes a problem, symptom, or keyword, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though it hints at limitations by stating what is not searched.

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