Look up the YAML schema

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key mode distinction ('resolve' returns full resolved JSON vs a summary) and the search/list behaviors, but omits the read-only nature, permissions, or limits one might expect for a lookup tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clean enumeration of modes and concrete examples. Efficient, though the mode list is dense and slightly cryptic without a lead-in on parameter mapping.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description covers the operational modes but leaves 'depth' and the required combination of parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot fully infer invocation semantics.

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 only 20% (only 'resolve' documented), so the description must compensate. It loosely maps its modes to name/search/listKinds and echoes the resolve behavior, but 'depth' is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect the Copilot Studio authoring schema') and enumerates three concrete modes (summarize/resolve a definition, search by keyword, list all kinds) with example definitions. No sibling tool does schema lookup, so it is effectively distinct, though the description never explicitly differentiates itself.

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 three modes imply how the tool is used and the examples (Question, SearchAndSummarizeContent, KnowledgeSourceConfiguration) suggest applicable inputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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