sap_read_domain_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' conveys a read-only intent, but the description does not mention output shape, empty-result behavior, error handling, or any prerequisites beyond the domain name. Basic behavior is present, but detail is limited.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, and the second adds practical use-case context without repeating schema information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but the sibling tool sap_read_field_domain_values creates ambiguity that this description does not resolve. There is also no output schema, and the description does not clarify exactly what the returned fixed values look like or whether an invalid domain causes an error.

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?

The input schema already describes domain_name fully, including an example value (MTART), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves fixed values defined for a domain, and gives concrete examples like material type and document type. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling sap_read_field_domain_values, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 explicitly frames when the tool is useful: understanding valid values for fields such as material type or document type. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is clear rather than merely implied.

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