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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining what 'structurally similar' means (same kind, similar method set, similar field set), which goes beyond the tool name and helps an agent predict behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core behavior and similarity criteria, the second states the primary use case. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only, list-returning tool with annotations covering safety and a self-explanatory schema. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of object names), but given the tool name and 'find ... objects' wording, an agent can infer the output shape. Minor gap: no explicit mention of result ordering or default scoping.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable under the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the verb (Find), the resource (D365 objects), and the distinguishing behavior (structurally similar, same kind, similar method set, similar field set). This differentiates it from sibling search/find tools like search_d365_code or find_references, which are text- or reference-based.

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 clear when-to-use trigger: 'when you need a working reference implementation to copy from.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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