d365_plugin_registration_metadata

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, yet the description still adds real value: it warns that listings are bounded and report limits (i.e. results may be truncated) and that metadata presence does not prove write permission. It also clarifies the tool never uploads assemblies, ruling out a mutation an agent might assume from a 'plugin registration' name.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the discovery scope, followed by the two key caveats. No filler and nothing buried.

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 discovery tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, truncation behavior and the write-permission caveat. What it omits is any sense of the shape of results (e.g. whether listings are grouped per message or assembly), which an agent would benefit from when interpreting output.

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 documents all seven parameters, including the alias semantics and the 'omit for global registration' note on primary_entity. The description's mention of SDK messages, assemblies and plugin types loosely maps to message/assembly_name/plugin_type_name but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and enumerates the concrete resources: plugin types, assemblies, SDK messages and message filters. It is clearly a read-only metadata listing tool, but it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. d365_plugin_assemblies_query or d365_plugin_assembly_inspect), so sibling differentiation is only implied by the 'does not upload' clause.

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?

'Bounded read-only listings report limits' and 'Does not upload assemblies' hint at when this tool is appropriate and when it isn't. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit statement of when to prefer d365_plugin_assemblies_query or d365_plugin_steps_query over this one, leaving selection to inference.

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