get_object_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that: the max-10 batching limit, per-object-section return shape, dot-suffix stripping for extension names, and the class members fast path. These are real behavioral disclosures that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place — batching, type selection, extension behavior, and class fast path are all high-value. It is dense to the point of being a single wall of text, and would benefit from light structural segmentation, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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 genuinely complex tool (4 params, nested objects, 20 objectTypes, numerous option flags, extension handling, no output schema), the description covers the critical usage surfaces well: return shape is hinted ('per-object sections back'), batching is explained, and the class special case is handled. The options field leans on the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage. Minor gaps remain around exact return formatting for non-class reads.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the name-vs-objects mutual requirement ('REQUIRED unless using objects[]'), per-object options overriding top-level options, and the class member syntax {'members':'names'} with optional prefix. This meaningfully enhances what the schema provides.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read D365FO object metadata') that precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, generate_object, and find_references. The full objectType enum, extension-type semantics, and class-members fast path make the scope unmistakable even before consulting the schema.

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?

Gives explicit batching guidance ('for 2+ objects pass objects:[...], max 10 — ONE call, run in parallel, never loop single calls'), the exact condition for picking extension types, and a firm exclusion ('never shell out to find or read a file'). Schema adds 'use search first if unsure'. This is exemplary when/when-not guidance.

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