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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the call is equivalent to two sibling calls, includeValidation adds latency for large objects, and methodName conditionally expands the payload with a full method body. This gives the agent a realistic picture of cost and return composition.

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 one dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the trigger condition and delivers the core value proposition in the first sentence. Every clause earns its place — the sibling equivalence, the INSTEAD routing, and the three optional-parameter behaviors. It could be slightly better organized with bullets, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return contents (structure, method signatures, relation summary, extensions, event handlers, optional validation results) and parameter behavior. The main gap is the absence of any output format or size expectation, though for a read-context tool with annotations already covering safety, this is a minor omission.

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 four parameters. The description adds value on top by explaining the intent and tradeoffs: includeValidation triggers best-practice violation checks (with a latency caveat), methodName includes a full method body, and aotType resolves ambiguity when several AOT objects share a name. This goes beyond mere syntax into selection rationale.

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 purpose: getting a COMPLETE picture of a D365 object in one call, returning full structure plus CoC extensions/event handlers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_object_details and find_extensions and stating it is the combined equivalent. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from neighboring tools.

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 opens with an explicit condition ('WHEN: you need a COMPLETE picture...') and explicitly tells the agent to use this INSTEAD of the two separate calls to reduce round-trips. It also gives usage conditions for each optional parameter. It does not, however, state when not to use it (e.g., when only structure or only extensions are needed, the lighter siblings would be preferable), leaving that exclusion implicit.

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