sap_read_field_domain_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys the key behavior: the tool resolves the domain automatically rather than requiring it as input. It does not discuss edge cases such as fields without domains or fixed values, but for a read-only lookup the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded, and the differentiating detail about automatic domain discovery is placed in the second sentence. Every word 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 two-required-parameter read tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool returns, the input context, and how it differs from its nearest alternative. It does not specify the exact output shape or empty/error behavior, but 'domain fixed values' and the tool name provide sufficient context for invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic link that field_name is used to discover the domain automatically, which enriches the terse schema descriptions, but it does not provide additional format, casing, or constraint details beyond the schema and examples.

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 action ('Get domain fixed values') and a specific resource ('a specific table field'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sap_read_domain_values by noting that this tool finds the domain automatically from the field, so the agent can tell them apart.

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 to use this tool: when you have a table field and want its domain fixed values, versus the alternative that requires the domain name. This gives clear selection criteria relative to the most similar sibling.

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