dataverse_retrieve_record_change_history

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

Adds beyond annotations by describing the polymorphic AuditDetail, common subtype, and error behavior when auditing is disabled. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so description enriches with return structure and failure mode.

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?

Concise, with clear lead sentence followed by technical details and prerequisites. Front-loaded and structured, though the URL form could be slightly more integrated.

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?

Covers key aspects: function name, return collection, polymorphic types, prerequisite (auditing), and error behavior. Output schema exists, so return details are adequate. Missing explicit ordering of results, but not critical.

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?

Description does not detail parameters; only hints via URL form. Schema separately describes all parameters, so baseline is 3. No additional meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 retrieves the full audit change history for a specific record, names the function and return type, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_audit_details' via specificity. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

States that auditing must be enabled on org and table, and mentions error handling if disabled. However, it does not explicitly cite alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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