Read Transaction (SE93)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: CINFO is a bit field so multiple flags can coexist, 'program' is legitimately empty for parameter/OO transactions, authChecks are limited to TSTCA start checks, and short text is English-only returning no description if absent. These clarify real edge cases without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a precise summary, then organized into Args, Returns, Examples, and Notes. Each note addresses a non-obvious behavior or output nuance, and there is no filler or repetition beyond the minimal, useful Args line.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of documenting return values, and it does so comprehensively: the full JSON shape, the transactionType enum, nested authChecks structure, and edge-case behaviors are all covered. With annotations covering safety/idempotency, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, including tcode examples and case-insensitive behavior, and response_format's enum/default. The description's 'Args' section only restates the parameter names and terse meanings without adding anything beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; no additional parameter-level insight is contributed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a transaction code's SE93 definition', and enumerates exactly what is returned (program/screen, transaction type, TSTCA checks, SM01 lock). It also distinguishes itself as the 'Core tool for authorization audits' and later contrasts code-level checks with sap_get_source and sap_where_used, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('Core tool for authorization audits') and clear exclusions: authChecks are only SE93-maintained TSTCA start-of-transaction checks, not full program-level authority checks, and for those the agent is directed to 'use sap_get_source or sap_where_used'. Examples also demonstrate query intent with tcode='SE38' and tcode='VA01'.

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