getStructureSource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the version caveat that DDIC may answer with the working version either way, and that both TABL/DT and TABL/DS come from the same endpoint. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 informative and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds sibling differentiation. It's slightly longer than necessary but every sentence earns its place, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (DDL text and parsed field list). It also covers object types supported and distinguishes from siblings, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly without missing information.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the version caveat, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the definition of a table or structure, specifying it returns DDL text and a parsed field list with types and key flags. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like searchObject and objectStructure, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('This is the way to see a table's fields') and contrasts it with searchObject (which returns a SAPGUI bridge URI) and objectStructure (which shows only metadata), giving clear guidance on alternatives and selection criteria.

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