Describe RFC Function Module

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the return structure, direction codes, and optional metadata fields, which goes beyond 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 compact, front-loaded, and well organized into Args, Returns, direction legend, and Example. Every section adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description appropriately carries the burden of explaining the return format. It fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 input schema fully documents function_name and response_format. The description adds a concrete example value and clarifies via context that function_name is the module to inspect, but it does not materially extend the schema semantics.

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 action and resource: "Get the parameter list (import, export, changing, table) of any RFC-enabled function module." This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling call/inspection tools like sap_rfc_call, sap_rfc_system_info, or sap_get_ddic.

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 example question, "What parameters does BAPI_SALESORDER_CREATEFROMDAT2 take?", gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended lookup scenario is unambiguous.

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