ReadTable

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

The description includes '[read-only]' to indicate non-destructive behavior, which adds value given no annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, caching behavior, or the exact scope of metadata returned.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with the key information front-loaded ('[read-only]'). Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably covers what the tool returns (table definition and metadata). It could mention whether the result is a full structure or summary, but for a simple read operation it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (version enum, table_name string), meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Read' and the resource 'ABAP table definition and metadata', specifying what is returned (package, responsible, description). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on different objects (e.g., structures, views).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., GetTable, ReadStructure). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without sufficient decision-making information.

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