I had very serious mistakes in my answer. Trying to fix them now.
After Yuriy S's comment, if you need to find $k$ such that
$$\frac{k^2\, x^k}{(k+1)!}< 10^{-d} \tag 1$$
Since $$\frac{k^2}{(k+1)!}=\frac k{k+1} \frac 1 {(k-1)!}\sim \frac 1 {(k-1)!}$$
we can approximate $(1)$ by equation
$$(k-1)! = ( x\,{10^d})\,x^{k-1}$$ or, simpler,
$$n!= (x\,10^d)\, x^n \qquad \text{where }\qquad n=k-1$$ If you look at this question of mine, you will see a magnificent approximation of the inverse factorial function which was proposed by @robjohn.
Applied to this case, this would give
$$\color{blue} { k\sim e\, x\,e^{W(t)}+\frac 12} \qquad \text{where }\qquad \color{blue} {t=\frac {\log \left(\frac{x\, 10^{2 d}}{2 \pi }\right) } {2e x }}\tag 2$$ where appears $W(.)$ which is Lambert function.
Let us try for a few values of $x$ and $d$. The next table reports in the real domain the value given by the approximation $(2)$ as well as the exact solution of $(1)$. You just need to use the next integer.
$$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
x & d & \text{approximation} & \text{exact} \\
1 & 4 & 8.33367 & 8.28080 \\
1 & 5 & 9.41743 & 9.37320 \\
1 & 6 & 10.4438 & 10.4056 \\
1 & 7 & 11.4258 & 11.3922 \\
1 & 8 & 12.3721 & 12.3420 \\
1 & 9 & 13.2888 & 13.2615 \\
& & & \\
2 & 4 & 12.0127 & 11.9689 \\
2 & 5 & 13.2892 & 13.2517 \\
2 & 6 & 14.5002 & 14.4674 \\
2 & 7 & 15.6595 & 15.6302 \\
2 & 8 & 16.7765 & 16.7500 \\
2 & 9 & 17.8579 & 17.8338 \\
& & & \\
3 & 4 & 15.3123 & 15.2744 \\
3 & 5 & 16.7140 & 16.6810 \\
3 & 6 & 18.0471 & 18.0178 \\
3 & 7 & 19.3250 & 19.2987 \\
3 & 8 & 20.5572 & 20.5333 \\
3 & 9 & 21.7508 & 21.7288 \\
& & & \\
4 & 4 & 18.4409 & 18.4071 \\
4 & 5 & 19.9348 & 19.9051 \\
4 & 6 & 21.3592 & 21.3326 \\
4 & 7 & 22.7268 & 22.7028 \\
4 & 8 & 24.0470 & 24.0250 \\
4 & 9 & 25.3267 & 25.3063 \\
& & & \\
5 & 4 & 21.4717 & 21.4412 \\
5 & 5 & 23.0379 & 23.0108 \\
5 & 6 & 24.5347 & 24.5104 \\
5 & 7 & 25.9744 & 25.9521 \\
5 & 8 & 27.3656 & 27.3452 \\
5 & 9 & 28.7152 & 28.6963
\end{array}
\right)$$
I've naively tried a limit because the series is convergent, so I was thinking that sum and limit notations are the same. I get that this was wrong assumption.
– terales Nov 17 '18 at 09:34