type_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that this is read-only and that it runs through a 'tenant-safe Groovy template', which hints at isolation and execution model. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, latency, or failure modes for unknown type codes.

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 short sentences with the safety trait front-loaded, no filler. The 'tenant-safe Groovy template' clause is slightly implementation-flavored but still carries useful signal.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers intent but leaves the agent guessing about the type identifier format and the shape of the returned attributes/deployment/subtype data.

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 0% and the single required 'type' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description should explain its expected format (e.g., a type code like 'Product'). It only implies the parameter via 'type attributes' and adds no syntax or naming guidance.

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: returns SAP Commerce type attributes, deployment data, and subtypes for a given type. This is clearly distinct from siblings like beans_info or config_get, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No indication of when to choose this over flexible_search or beans_info, nor what preconditions (tenant context, permissions) are needed. 'Read-only' implies a safe lookup but gives no routing guidance.

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