Get a browser-openable URL for an ABAP object, keyword, or Web Dynpro app

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world safe. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it will not actually open a browser, and it requires exactly one of the mutually exclusive modes. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the output, lists the input modes, then gives the two most important caveats in short sentences. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 simple URL-generation tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it defines what the URL is for, which parameter to use, and the key side-effect note. It could go slightly further by specifying the shape of the returned URL or error behavior for invalid combinations, but the title and schema fill in most gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by grouping the parameters into ADT source/HTML (object/type/line), keyword doc (keyword), and Web Dynpro URL (webdynpro), and by clarifying that exactly one is required even though the schema lists no required fields.

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 identifies the deliverable as a browser-openable URL and enumerates the three supported input modes (ADT source/HTML, keyword doc, Web Dynpro URL). The explicit note 'Does not open a browser' prevents a likely misinterpretation and distinguishes this tool from read/search-type siblings.

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 phrase 'Exactly one required' gives a clear usage constraint, and 'Does not open a browser' tells the agent what the tool will not do. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exactly when to prefer this tool over another, so usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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