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 useful behavioral context by stating the output is 'plain business language' with 'no X++ or workflow engine jargon,' which helps an agent set user expectations beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the WHEN clause and trigger examples, making it easy for an agent to quickly match intent. It is slightly repetitive with the 'WORKFLOW EXPLAINER' header and the following explanation, but every section still contributes useful guidance.

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 low-complexity tool with one documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it specifies when to use it, what it explains, the output style, and the alternative for technical details. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 covers the single parameter objectName fully with example values such as 'SalesTable' and 'PurchTable', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond indicating the object is a workflow-related D365 object, which the schema already implies.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'Explains a D365 approval workflow: who approves, what states exist, and what happens on approval or rejection.' It distinguishes itself from get_object_details by explicitly saying it is NOT for technical workflow class details.

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 an explicit WHEN section with concrete user phrasings such as 'explain the workflow for' and 'what happens when a user submits.' It also names get_object_details as the alternative for technical workflow class details, giving clear routing guidance.

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