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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it warns about a full index scan returning every match rather than top search results, and explains the default-to-custom-model behavior. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 slightly longer than necessary, but it is front-loaded with the WHEN trigger, followed by concrete usage examples and clear exclusions. Each sentence adds useful routing or behavioral information; the trigger examples are repetitive but aid recognition.

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 two-parameter, read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and strong annotation coverage, the description covers the key decision points: what it returns, when to use it, when not to use it, and default behavior. The absence of an output schema means return format is not specified, but this is a minor gap for a discovery-oriented list tool.

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 both parameters already have detailed descriptions including accepted values, filtering semantics, and examples. The tool description adds no meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource pair: list ALL objects of a given type or in a given model. It explicitly names sibling tools it is not (get_object_details, search_d365_code), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 an explicit 'WHEN' section with natural language triggers, explains the 'all objects' behavior, and gives direct exclusion guidance with named alternatives for single-object lookup and natural-language search. It also clarifies default model behavior when no filters are provided.

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