dataverse_list_choices

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it lists only global choices, does not return option values/labels, and notes that $filter is unsupported. This complements annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) without contradiction, giving the agent a clear understanding of what the tool does and does not provide.

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 (three sentences) with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: defining the resource, stating what is not included, and noting technical constraints. No wasted words.

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?

While the description covers purpose, missing data (options), and limitations, it fails to address the parameters. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), return format is covered. However, the absence of parameter guidance, especially with 0% schema coverage, leaves the agent underinformed about required and optional inputs.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameter usage. However, it provides no information about parameters like 'top', 'select', 'dataverse_url', or 'consistency_strong'. The agent must rely solely on the input schema, which lacks descriptions per the context. This is a significant gap.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'GLOBAL choice (option set) definitions', and specifies the scope ('in the Dataverse environment'). It explicitly distinguishes from 'dataverse_get_choice' for full option sets, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: when to use (list global choices), what not to expect (no option values/labels, with alternative), and technical limitations ($filter unsupported, top client-side). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'dataverse_get_choice' and 'dataverse_list_choice_column_options'.

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