CPI Query (read any entity set)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly labels the operation as a 'read query,' indicating non-destructive behavior, but it does not elaborate on pagination behavior (despite top/skip params), response format, or access requirements. The phrase 'standard OData options' is generic and does not disclose edge-case behaviors.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a compact example. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (generic read query) is front-loaded.

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 generic nature (any entity set) and lack of output schema, the description does not explain what the response looks like or how to discover valid entity sets. It also omits guidance on using pagination or select/expand options. However, the example and schema partially mitigate this by clarifying input usage.

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 description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema by providing a concrete example showing how to format entitySet, filter, and orderby. This clarifies usage for the less-documented parameters (e.g., orderby has no schema description). The example compensates for the 57% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Run a read query'), a clear resource ('ANY CPI OData entity set'), and scope ('standard OData options'). It distinguishes this generic query tool from siblings like get_mpl_details or search_message_processing_logs by emphasizing its applicability to any entity set.

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 implies use for any OData entity set but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over dedicated siblings or when not to use it. No exclusionary guidance is given, but the example provides a concrete use case that hints at typical query scenarios.

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