query_odata

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 correctly states supported features but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements (though auth params are in schema), error behavior, or performance implications. The description is positive but lacks behavioral caveats.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a bullet list of capabilities, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, known output schema), the description covers the main OData query capabilities. However, it does not explain authentication parameter usage or return format beyond what output schema might provide. Overall, it is fairly complete but could mention error handling or limitations.

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 schema has 10 parameters but only 20% have descriptions (entity alone). The description adds value through examples (e.g., filter, select, expand, top) but does not explain all parameters individually. For a tool with many parameters, more detailed explanation of each parameter's purpose and syntax would improve usability.

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 purpose: 'Execute a flexible OData query against any SAP SuccessFactors entity.' It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (OData query against entities), and the examples demonstrate distinct capabilities not offered by sibling tools like list_entities or search_employees.

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 examples and lists supported features (filtering, selection, expansion, pagination, sorting), which implicitly guide usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., get_employee_profile for employee details) and does not indicate when not to use it.

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