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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: supported file formats, admin-uploaded library scope, and the 'Image N' marker behavior with instruction to re-call with includeImages=true. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, exclusions, alternatives, trigger phrases, and an image-handling instruction. It is front-loaded with the most important routing information and contains no filler.

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 search tool with one required parameter and a simple schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to select and call it correctly, including output behavior around excerpts and inline images. No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient return-related guidance.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by explaining when to set includeImages=true using the 'Image N' marker and why images are off by default, which helps the agent invoke the tool correctly beyond the schema text.

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 the tool searches business/functional context documents stored outside the D365 code KB, and explicitly distinguishes it from code search tools like search_d365_code and get_object_details. Specific document types and trigger phrases make the resource and 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?

The description opens with 'WHEN', provides concrete trigger examples, explicitly states what it does NOT search, and names the sibling tools to use instead for X++ code/AOT objects. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no inference required.

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