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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only; the description adds helpful context by limiting analysis to custom/extension code (D365_CUSTOM_MODEL_PATH), enumerating seven concrete refactoring patterns, and promising before/after code examples. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 WHEN heading front-loads the most important decision signal, and the trigger list plus analysis categories are compressed but useful. Every sentence contributes either scope, trigger, or output information; there is 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 two-parameter read-only analysis tool without an output schema, the description covers intent, scope, analysis dimensions, and the return shape (before/after examples). The only minor gap is behavior on non-custom objects, but 'not actionable' makes the outcome clear enough.

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 explains objectName and methodName, including optionality and an example object name. The description adds high-level context about analyzed patterns but no new per-parameter semantics, 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?

The description names a specific verb ('suggest ... refactoring actions') and a specific resource (custom D365 F&O X++ code), with explicit boundaries versus standard code. It distinguishes from sibling analysis tools like detect_performance_issues or fix_best_practice_violations by focusing on refactoring patterns and before/after examples.

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?

It opens with a WHEN clause and concrete trigger phrases, and states the key exclusion: standard Microsoft code is not actionable. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives explicitly, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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