dataverse_list_business_units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior or error handling. With annotations covering the core safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing optional usage detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 annotations, a well-defined schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It briefly addresses filtering but does not mention other common aspects like pagination (though top parameter exists) or ordering. This slight gap prevents a perfect score.

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 context indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the tool's description does not explain the parameters. The description only mentions the filter parameter with an example, omitting top, select, and dataverse_url. Despite the schema having individual parameter descriptions (which are not counted in coverage by this metric), the description fails to compensate adequately for the low 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 explicitly states 'List business units in the Dataverse environment', clearly identifying the action and resource. It also lists the return fields (businessunitid, name, parent business unit, disabled flag, modifiedon), adding specificity that distinguishes it from other list tools.

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 provides a usage hint: 'Use filter to narrow results (e.g., "isdisabled eq false")', which helps when to apply filtering. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools (e.g., other list tools for different entities), offering only implicit guidance.

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