security_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional detail is valuable: it discloses the traversal paths (Role → Duties → Privileges → Entry Points and object → menu items → privileges → duties → roles). This exceeds what the annotations alone provide and helps the called tool behave predictably, though it doesn't cover potential errors or edge cases.

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, using bullet-like mode definitions with clear arrows to show hierarchy. Every sentence and clause contributes practical information, and the most important routing instruction ('Choose a mode') is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description gives a fairly concrete picture of what the caller can expect: full artifact hierarchies for artifact mode and reverse access chains for coverage mode. Combined with the input schema, this is sufficient for most call intentions, though a few details such as exact response shape or limit behavior are absent.

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 high (83%), and the schema already explains each parameter, including mode-specific requiredness, defaults, and enums. The description reinforces the conceptual meaning of the modes and their output chains, but doesn't add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Thus it earns the baseline 3.

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 breaks down two distinct modes: artifact lookup and coverage analysis. Each mode specifies exactly what is returned, including the full hierarchy and reverse chain, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from generic lookup tools.

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 context about when to use each mode: 'artifact' for hierarchy details on a security artifact, and 'coverage' for reverse access chains on an object. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect 5, but the mode guidance is strong enough to guide correct invocation.

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