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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it queries Azure DevOps Code Search in real-time for custom extensions not yet in the KB, which signals a live external lookup beyond a local cache.

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?

Three sentences convey the full scope, the real-time search behavior, and the critical usage rule without any filler. The most important directive is front-loaded and emphasized with 'ALWAYS.'

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 parameter, the description covers purpose, data sources, scope, and usage context. It lacks an explicit description of the return format, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'find all...' phrasing.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single baseObjectName parameter, including concrete examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referring to a 'base object,' so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 has a specific verb and clear resource: it finds extension objects, CoC classes, and event handlers for a named base object. It is unambiguous about scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool find_event_handlers, which overlaps with part of its functionality.

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 gives a strong, explicit usage directive: 'ALWAYS call before creating a new extension — avoid parallel customizations.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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