query_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It does not state the return shape (a collection of records), default/actual paging behavior, server-side row limits, error behavior on invalid filters, or auth requirements. 'OData filters' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and filtering mechanism come first. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin: it omits return structure, paging defaults, and when to prefer it over get_record or the write siblings. An agent could call it, but only by inferring everything from parameter names.

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 100%, so all six parameters (including required entity_set with a plural-name example) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds 'OData filters' framing but no syntax, escaping, or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 ('query'), resource ('records from a Dataverse table') and a distinguishing mechanism ('OData filters'), which separates it from single-record siblings like get_record. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or scope (e.g. all records vs. filtered), so differentiation is implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over get_record, list_entities, or invoke_action, nor any stated prerequisites (auth, permissions, table existence). The mention of OData filters hints at the intended use case but does not constitute routing guidance.

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