GetObjectUsages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it says nothing about whether this is a read-only (it is implied by 'Retrieve'), how expensive a comprehensive where-used scan is, whether results are paginated, or what happens with unresolved objects. The one useful disclosure, 'comprehensive', is left vague.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence spends its budget on a filtering claim that partly mismatches the schema.

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?

An 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than this; the description never indicates the shape of the returned usage list (elements vs. definitions vs. metadata blobs) even though include_elements, include_definitions, and include_metadata all toggle it. An agent cannot predict result size or structure from the description.

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 every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds little, and its claim of filtering by 'usage grades' maps to no parameter in the schema, a small inaccuracy rather than added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve comprehensive where-used list for ABAP objects') and enumerates the object kinds it covers, which implicitly separates it from the narrower GetClassUsages sibling. It never names that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus GetClassUsages, GetPackageContents, or SearchObject, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Supports filtering by object types and usage grades' hints at capability but not at when this tool is the right choice.

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