noark5_filter_entities

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 explains that the tool operates on one collection at a time, supports full OData expressions, lists all entities when filter is empty, and returns formatted results with systemID, title, and URL. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not discuss edge cases such as invalid filters or empty collections.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, usage guidance, contrast with sibling, examples, then parameter details. Every section earns its place, and the examples are useful rather than redundant. It is detailed but not bloated.

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?

For a two-parameter filtering tool with no annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it versus alternatives, parameter semantics, concrete filter syntax, and the return shape. The presence of an output schema lowers the need to explain return values further, though it does anyway.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does: collection_url is explained as the base URL without the {?$filter} suffix, filter_str is described as an optional OData expression, and concrete examples show acceptable syntax. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pairing: 'List or filter entities from a specific collection URL using OData $filter.' It clearly distinguishes itself from noark5_search_entities, which searches globally, so an agent can tell the tools apart without inspecting sibling schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when you have a known collection URL from noark5_entity_links or noark5_list_children and need field-level filtering. It also contrasts with noark5_search_entities, giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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