GetVersionHistory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (table of version IDs, dates, authors, transport numbers) and two non-obvious behavioral quirks (transport numbers may be tasks or parent requests; version '00000' means CURRENT/ACTIVE and may predate transported versions). It does not state read-only safety explicitly, though 'Retrieve' implies it.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the transport-hierarchy caveat and the '00000' rule, so the important operational details come early. The closing 'See footer notes for complete guidance' defers content elsewhere and is mild filler, keeping it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does (columns returned) plus two critical semantic caveats. Combined with full param coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret results correctly, though it never explicitly confirms the read-only nature.

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% with only two well-documented parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no new syntax or format detail for object_name/object_type, matching the baseline of 3.

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 version history for an ABAP object across transports.' The scope ('across transports') implicitly separates it from GetTransportVersions/ListUserTransports, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just 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?

It does route the agent toward GetTransportRequest when it needs to understand task-vs-request hierarchy, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. versus CompareObjectVersions or GetTransportVersions), leaving selection largely inferential.

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