GetTableContents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and batch mode is disclosed, but there is no mention of permissions, whether results are capped (schema holds the 500-row/10-query limits), or response behavior. Adequate but thin for a no-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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and then the mode-selection rule. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, every clause carries information.

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?

The mode-selection ambiguity is covered and the schema is fully annotated, but there is no output schema and the description never explains what the response looks like (row shape, how batch results are keyed by id, effect of include_column_metadata). For an 8-parameter tool with nested batch objects and no output schema, that is a real gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the equality-only constraint on where_conditions and column validation. The description adds only a high-level mention of filtering/pagination/batch and no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 contents of an ABAP table') and names its distinguishing capabilities (filtering, pagination, batch). The word 'contents' implicitly separates it from metadata-oriented siblings like GetTable, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?

Explicitly states the selection rule between its two modes: table_name for a single query, queries array for batch mode. That is clear, actionable context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling lookup tools such as GetTable or GetStructure, and no exclusions.

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