dataverse_list_solution_histories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: resolution logic (solution_id resolved to unique name first), filtering via msdyn_name, and suboperation field semantics. This goes beyond annotations to explain data interpretation.

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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then detailing filters, then field semantics. Every sentence is informative. No fluff.

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 shown), the description covers filtering options, parameter constraints, and field interpretation (msdyn_suboperation). It fully explains the tool's behavior and is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Although the input schema has good descriptions, the description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of solution_id and solution_unique_name, the resolution process, and that omitting both lists all. It also references the default projection for the select parameter.

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 it lists solution history records from msdyn_solutionhistories, tracking import, upgrade, and export operations. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataverse_get_solution_history.

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 explains when to use (to track solution operations), the mutual exclusivity of filters (solution_id and solution_unique_name), and the meaning of msdyn_suboperation. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but provides clear context.

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