odata_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it reveals that records are written to a JSON file, that pagination follows __next, that effective-dated entities return only today's slice by default, and that preview returns inline records. This is strong transparency, though it leaves some behaviors unstated, such as how company_id affects the query and what happens on errors.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the opening states the core action, examples clarify path syntax, the effective-dating caveat prevents a common mistake, and the output/preview warning adds important usage constraints. The structure front-loads the main purpose before moving to specific behavioral and output details.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and a low-schema-coverage input schema, the description covers the critical invariants: pagination, date-slice behavior, file output, return contents, and preview caution. It is not fully complete because company_id is left undefined and there is no guidance on how to distinguish this tool from sibling query tools, but the essential calling contract is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It substantially explains path with examples, implies how params work by naming fromDate and toDate, and explains preview and max_pages in context. However, company_id is not mentioned at all, and the relationship between inline query options on path versus params is not fully specified, leaving the parameter semantics incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run an OData v2 query,' and immediately clarifies the pagination behavior with 'following __next until exhausted or max_pages.' It gives concrete examples of valid path values, such as 'FOCompany' and 'EmpJob?$select=userId,jobCode', making the tool's operation unambiguous. Although it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings, the focus on entity sets, JSON file output, and record counts clearly separates it from metadata-focused siblings like odata_metadata.

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 gives clear usage context: path determines the entity set, effective-dated entities need explicit fromDate/toDate params to retrieve more than today's slice, and preview should only be requested when actual values are needed because it may expose HR data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool versus ce_query or odata_metadata, so it falls short of a 5.

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