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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it searches the knowledge base for SubscribesTo attribute patterns rather than doing live code execution. It also explains eventName narrowing, though it does not disclose limitations such as potential misses for handlers not using the documented pattern.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the search mechanism and usage triggers. The WHEN list is somewhat long but earns its place by providing actionable routing cues.

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 the readOnly annotation, clear parameter schema, and explicit search-pattern explanation, the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'find all event handlers' outcome implied in the first sentence.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a little value by explicitly explaining that eventName narrows results and giving an example, but it does not add meaning for handlerType or objectName beyond the schema 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 it finds event handlers subscribing to events on a D365 table or class, and specifies the searched attribute patterns. It is distinguishable from generic search tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 explicit WHEN trigger phrases including natural-language intents and French equivalents, giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage cues are strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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