abap_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it only exposes contract metadata, never entity data; it detects V2/V4; and unpublished bindings are labeled as such. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool will and will not do.

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 every sentence earns its place: the first defines the contract contents, the second states the hard limitation, and the third handles the unpublished-binding edge case. The most important scoping constraint, 'contract only,' is front-loaded near the beginning.

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 output schema, the description explains what the return concept covers: entity sets, keys, fields, navigation, CRUD/search/page permissions, and V2/V4 detection. It also flags the key limitation and an edge case. Minor gaps like exact response structure or how modes map to output shapes are left to the schema, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents binding, mode, and entity. The description adds context about the contract contents and V2/V4 detection, but it does not substantially expand the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-semantics load.

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 tool as returning the OData contract a RAP SRVB publishes, including entity sets, keys, fields, navigation, and permissions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from data-reading tools by stating 'Cannot read entity data — contract only.' The resource and scope are specific enough that an agent can tell this apart from siblings like abap_read or abap_search.

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 a clear when-not-to-use signal by stating 'Cannot read entity data — contract only,' which tells the agent this is for contract metadata, not entity data retrieval. It also notes unpublished bindings are named as such, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state 'use X instead,' 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.