query_analytical_data

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It provides several non-obvious behavioral details: filtering dimensions is cheaper than filtering measures, federated sources support only eq/and/or/(), values must be single-quoted and are case-sensitive, and a value containing a single quote cannot be filtered on. This goes well beyond the schema and informs the agent of important limitations and performance characteristics.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence compactly lists all supported OData clauses in a single line, and the third clause adds clear use cases. No word is wasted, and the structure makes the tool's capability immediately apparent.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides a comprehensive view of what the tool does, its supported syntax, and its intended use cases. The rich param schema covers the individual parameters, while the description supplies the overarching query context and behavioral caveats. For a query tool of this complexity, the combination is sufficiently complete.

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 adds a high-level overview of OData syntax but does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already explains. The schema's parameter descriptions already cover examples, defaults, and constraints, so the tool description's additional value is marginal.

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: executing OData queries on analytical models to retrieve aggregated data. It names the supported query capabilities ($select, $filter, $orderby, $top/$skip, $apply), making it distinct from sibling tools like query_relational_entity or execute_query. The resource (analytical models) and action (execute/retrieve) are specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Perfect for business intelligence, reporting, and data analysis') and defines its domain as analytical models. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the analytical/OData focus provides clear contextual guidance versus relational query tools.

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