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

The description discloses that the tool searches the knowledge base for specific attribute patterns, which signals the underlying mechanism and potential limitation (static pattern matching rather than runtime inspection). Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful method context beyond those.

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 efficiently structured with the core action first, followed by pattern details, filter usage, and WHEN examples. The WHEN list includes redundant language variants, but the space is justified by the multilingual user base.

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 search tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, search method, optional filters, and common query intents. There is no output schema, but the expected result (event handlers) is implied clearly enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a concrete event example and clarifies objectName refers to a table or class name, but this is marginal beyond the schema.

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 finds event handlers that subscribe to events on a D365 table or class, naming the exact attribute patterns searched. This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like find_references or find_callers by focusing specifically on SubscribesTo handlers.

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 guidance with concrete query intents and example phrases, including non-English variants. It does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool, but the intent list is specific enough to guide selection.

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