objectStructure

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already provided, the bar is lower. The description adds actionable context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the tool does not return content, explains what content lives in other tools, and mentions the 'links ADT offers'. This is a meaningful behavioral boundary.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence is a bit convoluted but still gets its point across. No padding or tautology.

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?

Given low parameter count, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it says what is returned, what isn't, and how siblings cover the rest. An agent can call it correctly without additional 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 baseline is 3. The description adds little for 'version' beyond 'Version of the object', though it gives a useful hint about 'objectUrl' enabling finding the source URL of an unfamiliar type. It is enough but not rich.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'metadata of one object,' and itemizes the fields (name, type, package, change info, master language, links). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling content-returning tools by naming getStructureSource and getMessages, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 states a concrete use case ('how the address of an unfamiliar type is found') and explicitly tells when not to use it ('does NOT return content') while naming getStructureSource and getMessages as alternatives. This gives full when/when-not guidance.

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