Get Data Store Entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral transparency. It describes a read operation ('list'), but does not disclose pagination behavior (the 'top' parameter suggests pagination but is unexplained), error handling, or return format. The description only adds context for one parameter, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 long with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then clarifies the key parameter. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to paginate (top parameter), what 'type' means, or what the response looks like. A more complete description would include these details to help the agent use the tool correctly.

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. It only explains one of four parameters (IntegrationFlow) partially. The other parameters (top, type, dataStoreName) are not described at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 'List the entries in a specific data store', which specifies the verb and resource. It also clarifies the role of 'IntegrationFlow' parameter (flow Id or empty for global store). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_data_stores' or 'get_message_store_entries', so it loses a point for not fully distinguishing purpose.

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 some guidance by indicating that IntegrationFlow can be empty for a global store, hinting at when to use the tool for a specific store vs. global. But it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it offer alternatives like using 'list_data_stores' to find stores first. This is adequate but not explicit.

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