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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'KB read only, no writes' and adds behavioral context about the indexed KB and reserved/standard prefix checks. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact sections (WHEN, Triggers, Cloud-safe) front-load the essential guidance and add zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Tool is simple, fully annotated, and has fully described parameters. No output schema exists, but the description's three checks give enough behavioral context for correct invocation. It could mention the return format, but this is a minor gap.

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% with clear examples for each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Description states a specific verb ('check') and a precise resource (proposed object name) against clear criteria: D365+ISV naming conventions, uniqueness against indexed KB, and reserved/standard prefix collisions. This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_best_practices and create_aot_object.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN:' clause with concrete trigger phrases gives clear context for when to use the tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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