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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool actually checks (naming conventions, KB uniqueness, reserved/standard prefix collisions) and explicitly states 'KB read only, no writes,' which reinforces but does not contradict the annotations. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but for a read-only check the core behavior is clear.

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 compact and well-structured with 'WHEN', 'Triggers', and 'Cloud-safe' labels. Every sentence earns its place, and the trigger list is useful for an agent. The only minor redundancy is 'no writes,' which partially duplicates the annotations, but it does not bloat 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 simple read-only validation tool with 100% schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation cues, and safety. It does not specify the return format, but an agent can reasonably infer a validity result. The missing return-value detail is a minor gap, not a blocker.

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 each parameter (proposedName, aotType, isvPrefix) having a descriptive explanation and examples. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('check') and a well-defined resource ('object name follows D365 + ISV naming conventions, is unique against the indexed KB, and does not collide with a reserved or standard prefix'). It is clearly distinct from create_aot_object and validate_best_practices in intent, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or say what it is not.

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 'WHEN' clause directly frames the scenario, and the trigger phrases ('is this a valid name', 'check naming', 'name conflict', 'valider le nommage') give concrete lexical cues for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with validate_best_practices or other siblings.

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