GetPackage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the categories of information returned (hierarchy, transports, interfaces), which is real behavioral disclosure, but it never states that the call is read-only, what permissions are needed, or the response format, leaving notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource leading and the returned categories trailing as a list. No filler, though the enumeration is dense and could be trimmed.

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 compensates by enumerating what the caller receives (metadata, attributes, hierarchy, transports, application component, interfaces). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the response shape/pagination remain unspecified.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'package_name'. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (ABAP package information) and enumerates the categories returned: metadata, attributes, hierarchy, transport details, application component and interfaces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling GetPackageContents, which is the most likely confusion point, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as GetPackageContents for listing contained objects. Usage is only implied by the 'Get<Object>' naming convention.

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