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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the conditional behavior for known process names (complete chain with forms, tables, classes, entities, reports, security roles) versus arbitrary object names (dependency tracing), and that it generates a Mermaid diagram.

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 well-organized with WHEN, triggers, core behavior, and an explicit exclusion. It is longer than average, but the trigger list and examples earn their place by helping the agent recognize invocation contexts. Slight redundancy with schema examples keeps it from a 5.

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 mapping tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, this description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use it, what to pass, how to discover known processes, and what output format to expect. No critical information is missing.

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% for processName, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by listing known process examples (Order-to-Cash, Procure-to-Pay, etc.), explaining the fallback for object names, and the special 'list' value—adding meaning beyond the bare 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 verb and resource: 'Map a D365 F&O business process to its complete object chain' and clearly names the output (a Mermaid process flow diagram). It also distinguishes itself from find_related_objects, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

An explicit WHEN section lists concrete scenarios and trigger phrases ('processus métier', 'Order-to-Cash', 'map the process', etc.). It also says 'NOT for a single object's FK relations only' and directs the agent to use find_related_objects instead, plus instructs using 'list' to enumerate known processes.

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