security_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it discloses that artifact mode returns the full hierarchy (Role → Duties → Privileges → Entry Points) and coverage mode returns the reverse chain. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it doesn't cover error cases or permissions.

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 two concise sentences with clear bullet-like mode breakdowns. Every phrase earns its place: it names the tool domain, the two modes, and the exact output shape for each. No fluff 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value shape for both modes (full hierarchy and reverse chain). With 100% schema coverage on parameters and readOnlyHint annotation, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds conceptual meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between modes and the direction of traversal (forward hierarchy vs reverse chain). This helps the agent understand how the parameters like name, objectName, and includeChain fit together.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'D365FO security lookup' and specifies two distinct modes (artifact and coverage) with explicit arrow chains showing what each returns. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_object_info and search by focusing on security hierarchy lookup.

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 description gives clear usage context by explaining when to use artifact mode (look up a named privilege/duty/role) vs coverage mode (find who can access an object). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools for overlapping use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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