get_attribute_dependencies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does disclose key traits: best-effort name resolution with nulls, and the backing implementation (RetrieveDependenciesForDelete). It doesn't state permissions/auth needs or output shape, but the null-resolution caveat and the underlying function name give meaningful behavioral context beyond what the empty annotation set provides.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then usage triggers, then a caveat. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 read-only dependency-lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggering conditions, and a name-resolution caveat. It could say more about the failure-mode semantics (why 0x8004f01f means dependencies exist) but is sufficient to invoke 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 coverage is 100% – both parameters are fully described in the schema (logical names of entity and column). The description adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (CRM components that reference a column) and enumerates the component types (forms, views, workflows, business rules, plugins). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_attribute or update_attribute without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when delete_attribute fails with 0x8004f01f' and 'before any destructive change to a column.' This ties directly to sibling tools (delete_attribute, update_attribute) and tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool versus proceeding.

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