query_relational_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like support for large batch processing (up to 50,000 records), filtering, column selection, and pagination, but does not mention return format, error handling, or whether it is strictly read-only. Since it is a read-oriented query tool, the information provided is somewhat adequate but incomplete.

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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only relevant details like limits and a prerequisite. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, capabilities, and batch limit, but omits return format and error semantics. The prerequisite guidance is helpful, but the absence of output schema information creates a noticeable gap for an agent predicting results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions capabilities like filtering, column selection, and pagination, which map to existing parameters (filter, select, top/skip), but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The reference to list_relational_entities is also already embedded in the entity_name parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Execute[s] OData queries on relational entities' for 'ETL data extraction', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_analytical_data by explicitly focusing on relational entities and OData, and by mentioning the prerequisite discovery tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('data warehouse loading and analytics pipelines') and explicitly instructs to 'Use list_relational_entities to discover available entity names first', which is a helpful prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools to avoid, but the relational/analytical distinction is clear.

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