GetMessageClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely important behavior: the payload arrives as an unparsed ADT metadata XML document under the `message_class` field, and that adt-clients 19 stopped parsing it into named fields. This is exactly the kind of format-change disclosure an agent needs. It omits error/permission behavior, but for a read tool this is solid coverage.

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-loads the verb and resource in the first clause, then adds a single focused sentence about the format change. No filler, though the version-history remark slightly lengthens an otherwise tight statement.

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, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: the raw XML document under `message_class`. The description of the unparsed return shape, including the former named fields, is complete for an agent to consume the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single `message_class_name` parameter is already documented by the schema. The description references the `message_class` field but that is the output field, not the input parameter, so it adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself. 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('ABAP message class (MSAG/T100)') with the exact technical identifiers, so the agent knows what object type is fetched. It does not explicitly contrast itself with GetMessageClassMessage, which fetches a single message rather than the class, but the resource naming is precise enough to distinguish them.

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: 'the caller reads the document itself' hints at when the raw-document output is expected. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus GetMessageClassMessage or the Create/Update/Delete variants.

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