query_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, throttling/rate limits, default paging behavior, or the shape of results. Beyond the word 'pagination' in passing, an agent gets no operational context for a live CRM query.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering capability and options, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with this many behavioral unknowns.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch the return shape and note that pagination uses server-side paging rather than the top parameter alone. It remains adequate-but-minimal for a tool of this complexity.

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 five parameters with examples (OData filter syntax, select field lists, orderby clauses, entitySet plural naming). The description restates the parameter categories generically rather than adding syntax or format detail, so 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 names a specific verb (Query) and resource (entities in Dynamics 365) and enumerates the supported operations (filtering, sorting, pagination), so the agent knows what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_entities, get_entity, or execute_odata_query, which overlap in the read space.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nearby alternatives (execute_odata_query, list_entities, get_entity). The agent must infer routing from names alone, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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