query_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose pagination behavior by explaining hasNextPage and nextLink, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any permissions prerequisites or rate limits. The opaque query behavior is not fully disclosed.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the function, the second provides essential pagination guidance. No fluff or 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?

The tool has medium complexity with 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main query capabilities and pagination, but it does not explain the return format (e.g., an array of records) or provide guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling query tools. It is adequate for a straightforward query tool but lacks deeper contextual completeness.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters clearly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing supported OData features ($filter, $select, etc.) and mentioning nextLink for pagination, but this largely echoes what the schema already states. No new semantic information is introduced.

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 'Query records from a Dataverse table using OData', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_fetchxml by explicitly mentioning the OData query method, and from get_record by indicating it returns multiple records via OData.

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 implies usage through its OData focus and mentions supported features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_fetchxml or list_tables. There is no 'use this instead of...' guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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