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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is 'Cloud-safe' because it parses an AxMenuItem XML already loaded in the KB, which implies no external dependency and a prior-loading requirement. It also discloses the kind of data returned, though it does not address failure behavior if the item is missing from the KB.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: WHEN condition, trigger phrases, cloud-safety model, and return contents are all included with no filler. The description is dense and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, behavioral context, and key return fields. The only minor gap is a slight ambiguity around whether label and parameters mentioned in the first sentence are part of the actual return payload, and there is no handling for the case where the menu item is not present in the KB.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters including defaults, optionality, and examples. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces that menu item type can be Display/Action/Output, which is already in 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 states a specific action ('resolve a menu item' / 'parses the AxMenuItem XML') and clearly identifies the resource and what the tool returns: target object, menu item type, linked privilege, and form/class/report. It includes trigger phrases and distinguishes this tool from sibling object-info tools like get_object_details or get_data_entity_info by focusing on the menu-item domain.

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 a clear WHEN condition and concrete trigger phrases, such as 'menu item info' and 'what does menu item X open', which tells an agent exactly when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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