dataverse_get_solution_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by detailing returned information (result, timing, error messages, publisher info) and explaining the msdyn_suboperation field (3 vs 5). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the purpose, the second lists return contents, and the final paragraph explains a key field. No extraneous information is present.

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 presence of an output schema (not fully shown), the description covers the essential return details and provides a useful explanation of the suboperation field. However, it omits guidance on when to use the select parameter or how this tool relates to the sibling list tool, which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters (dataverse_url, solution_history_id, select). The tool description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond stating that the ID is a GUID. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve a single solution history record by its GUID,' specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_solution_histories' tool by focusing on a single record retrieval.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_solution_histories. It implies usage when a specific GUID is known, but lacks explicit guidance or context for selection.

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