invoke_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP method/read-only nature, how parameters are inlined as OData arguments, and the binding requirements. It omits auth/permission needs, error semantics, and return shape for a tool with no output schema.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb/resource and the GET/read-only constraint before the usage and parameter rules. Every sentence carries instructional value.

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 four-parameter tool with a nested object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers binding, call shape, and argument encoding adequately. It leaves the return payload undefined, which is a real gap only because no output schema exists to compensate.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the binding conditions and quoting rules. The description restates the entity_set+id binding rule and the OData inlining behavior, adding reinforcement but little genuinely new semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Invoke a Dataverse Web API function (GET)') and its scope (bound or unbound), which separates it from mutation tools. However, it never explicitly names the sibling 'invoke_action' as the alternative for side-effecting operations, leaving the contrast implicit through '(GET)' and 'read-only'.

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 gives concrete selection criteria: use for read-only operations exposed as functions, with concrete examples (WhoAmI unbound, RetrieveDuplicates) and the bound-vs-unbound parameter rule ('Pass entity_set+id for bound functions, neither for unbound'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for actions/updates, use invoke_action).

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