bw_get_ckf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discharges much of it: it enumerates the exact return payload (technical name, description, rendered formula, structured formula_tree, exception aggregation, metadata, full dependency graph) and notes the round-trip contract that write tools accept the formula_tree unchanged. It stops short of stating read-only safety, error behavior, or what happens for non-existent or non-global CKFs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then a single enumeration of return fields; no filler sentences. The enumeration is dense and long, but each listed item (formula_tree round-trip, exception aggregation shape) carries information an agent needs given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value and contract information, and it covers that fully, including the round-trip compatibility with the CKF write tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents component_name fully. The description adds no format, naming, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('global Calculated Key Figure defined at CompositeProvider level'), and the qualifier 'global... at CompositeProvider level' distinguishes it from the sibling bw_get_rkf (reusable key figure) and bw_get_structure. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read semantics and by the mention that the formula_tree is consumed by bw_create_ckf and bw_update_ckf, which hints at a read-before-write workflow. It never states when to prefer this over bw_get_rkf, bw_get_composite_provider, or bw_get_aggregation_level, nor any prerequisites.

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