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

Adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: discloses this is a 'pure KB lookup' with no D365 dependency, and that output is a ranked recommendation with citations to the Microsoft Learn extensibility guide. These claims are fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, adding useful operational color to the safety profile.

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?

Roughly 60 words with a labeled WHEN → Triggers → Returns → Safety structure that front-loads the decision context. Every clause earns its place; the only slight redundancy, 'no writes', is a brief phrase that reinforces the safety profile without bloating the text.

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, two-parameter KB-lookup tool, the description covers decision context, trigger phrases, output behavior, and safety, while the schema fully documents both parameters. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description states what the agent will receive (a ranked recommendation with citations), so nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%: both intent and objectName have detailed descriptions with concrete examples ('add a status field', 'SalesTable', 'PurchFormLetter_Confirmation'). The description adds only the mapping of objectName to 'target AOT type', which is marginal on top of an already self-documenting schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a ranked recommendation' for choosing among AxTableExtension, Chain of Command, EventHandler, or Delegate when customising a standard D365 object. The WHEN clause and trigger phrases ('how to extend', 'extension strategy for') make the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinguish it from siblings like find_extensions (finds existing extensions) or create_aot_object (creates objects).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('WHEN: developer about to customise a standard D365 object asks...') plus concrete trigger phrases in both English and French ('CoC ou event handler', 'comment etendre X'). It does not name when-not-to-use conditions or point at alternative tools, so it stops short of the full exclusion guidance required for a 5.

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