preview_fetchxml_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful trait — that the sample is not a full result set and that it returns effective query and paging info — but it never confirms read-only behavior, whether the query executes against the org, or any cost/permission implications. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The second sentence's caveat about the sample not being a full result set earns its place, though the phrasing is slightly indirect.

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?

The description sketches the return payload ('effective query and paging information'), which compensates somewhat for the missing output schema, and the schema fully covers inputs. However, it omits when to use the tool versus the full query and any safety/read-only framing, leaving the agent to infer the calling context for a four-parameter query tool.

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 all four parameters (including the state_mode enum and state_values) are already documented in the schema. The description references the 'state/filter logic' but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('the first result' of a FetchXML query), and it names the sibling query_by_fetchxml to anchor what it shares logic with. An agent can tell it apart from the full query tool, though the distinction is implied by 'first result' rather than stated directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Preview' suggests trying a query before running the full one, but the description never says explicitly when to choose this over query_by_fetchxml or what the trade-off is. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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