get_items

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 mentions support for OData parameters but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination details (beyond 'top' and 'skip'), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the return format. For a query tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose and key features. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The high schema coverage doesn't fully offset these gaps in a query operation with multiple parameters.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has high coverage (86%). It lists OData parameters like '$filter' and '$select' but doesn't explain their semantics or interactions beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With the schema doing most of the work, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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's purpose as 'Query items in a list' with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('items in a list'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_item' or 'delete_item'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other query-related siblings like 'get_list_schema' or 'get_views', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists supported OData parameters but doesn't mention when to choose this over other query tools like 'get_list_schema' or 'get_views', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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