RFC System Information

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the specific RFC function and detailing the response structure with optional fields. However, it says 'Returns (json)' while the response_format parameter defaults to 'markdown', creating ambiguity about the actual output format. This is a transparency gap, though it does not contradict the read-only/idempotent 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 concise, with two sentences that deliver the core purpose and return structure without fluff. The 'Returns (json)' phrase is slightly misleading but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the metadata retrieved and the exact response fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema. The only minor gap is the output format ambiguity, which is covered by the parameter schema.

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% and the single response_format parameter is fully documented with enum values, default, and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Call RFC_SYSTEM_INFO to retrieve SAP system metadata (SID, host, release)'. It also lists the exact metadata fields returned, which differentiates it from sibling tools like sap_connection_test or sap_rfc_ping that concern connectivity rather than system metadata.

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 implies usage when SAP system metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit through the stated purpose.

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