get_analytical_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses the automatic identification of analytical elements via SAP annotations and outlines the returned schema components. However, it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, permission requirements, or failure behavior. For a read-only metadata retrieval, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three concise sentences, immediately states the action and resource, and adds relevant detail about return content and behavior without 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, return content, and a key behavior for a metadata retrieval tool. Without an output schema, it does enough to set expectations about dimensions, measures, hierarchies, and aggregation. However, it lacks information about the exact CSDL format or how missing annotations are handled, which could be useful but is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description indirectly relates to the identify_dimensions_measures parameter by mentioning automatic identification, but does not provide explicit parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. The main parameters space_id and asset_id are only described in the schema, not elaborated further in the description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CSDL metadata for analytical consumption of a specific asset.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_relational_metadata by explicitly specifying analytical metadata, and mentions the return schema content.

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 clear context that this tool is for analytical and BI integration needs, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context signals show several sibling metadata tools, but the description relies on the term 'analytical' to differentiate.

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