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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: output is plain business language, no X++ or workflow engine jargon, and it covers approval/rejection outcomes. This helps set expectations for the response style.

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 well-structured with WHEN, NOT, and trigger sections, and the key scoping information is front-loaded. The trigger list is slightly redundant with the opening WHEN clause, but it adds concrete value for intent matching.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: when to use it, what it explains, the output language style, and the exclusion boundary. No critical context 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 parameter description already provides examples like 'SalesTable' and 'ALMDemandeAchatWorkflow'. The tool description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: explains a D365 approval workflow, covering who approves, states, and outcomes. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_object_details by explicitly excluding 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?

Provides explicit WHEN conditions with concrete user-question examples, and an explicit NOT condition with the alternative tool to use (get_object_details). Trigger phrases, including multilingual examples, leave no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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