get_relational_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return includes schema information and SQL type mapping, but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value—no wasted words. Ideal conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and presence of sibling tools, the description adequately covers purpose, included schema elements, and SQL type mapping. It lacks details on output structure or potential edge cases, but is mostly complete for a retrieval tool.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Space identifier (e.g., 'SAP_CONTENT')'). With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve CSDL metadata for relational consumption of a specific asset,' specifying the verb (retrieve) and resource (CSDL metadata for a specific asset). It lists included elements (tables, columns, data types, keys, relationships) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_analytical_metadata or get_table_schema.

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 indicates usage for 'relational consumption' and 'relational data access and ETL planning,' providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, though sibling tool names like get_analytical_metadata serve as implicit contrasts.

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