get_analytical_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the CSDL parsing behavior, which is useful, but it doesn't explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, mention required permissions, or warn about potentially large response sizes. The 'Get' verb implies non-destructive behavior, but as a general read tool, more explicit transparency would be better.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and a detailed list of return types. The second sentence adds value by explaining the CSDL parsing logic. There is no redundant or vague wording, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description explicitly lists the return contents (entity sets, dimensions, measures, query capabilities) and explains the parsing behavior, which compensates for the missing schema. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over similar tools, and does not mention any limitations or prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, technical metadata), this is reasonably complete but not perfect.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (asset_id, space_id, include_metadata), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely says 'specific analytical model' without elaborating on parameter roles or relationships.

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 tool retrieves the OData service document and metadata for a specific analytical model, including entity sets, dimensions, measures, and query capabilities. The mention of CSDL parsing and SAP aggregation roles adds a specific technical detail that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_analytical_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_analytical_metadata, list_analytical_datasets). It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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