GetDomain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read operation and version support, but does not mention any safety aspects (e.g., read-only, not destructive), authorization needs, or what the response contains. It adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the version parameter's purpose, but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without any redundant words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 has low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema). The description covers the basic purpose and version differentiation, but does not explain what the 'definition' includes (e.g., structure like data elements, length, etc.). Without an output schema, the agent lacks information on return format, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (domain_name and version), including a detailed description for version. The description adds minimal additional meaning ('Supports reading active or inactive version'), which mostly reiterates schema info. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('ABAP domain definition'). It also highlights the ability to read active or inactive versions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like CreateDomain, ActivateDomain, or DeleteDomain, which modify or affect domain state.

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 for reading domain definitions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use GetDomain vs GetTable) or provide exclusions. The context of siblings suggests read-only purpose, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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