GetMessageClassMessage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers a genuinely non-obvious trait: the server returns the ENTIRE parent class XML under `message`, so the caller must search for `msgno` themselves. It also discloses that `msgno` is validated server-side and that a missing number refuses as not-found. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 core purpose, then two follow-up sentences that each earn their place by disclosing the non-obvious return-shape pitfall and the validation behavior. Slightly dense, but no wasted text.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description still conveys the critical return-shape gotcha and validation semantics, which is what an agent most needs. It omits auth requirements and richer error behavior, but the essential calling information is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `msgno` is validated server-side and that its text is not parsed out for the caller. That behavioral nuance on the parameter exceeds the schema's simple 'Message number (e.g., "001")'.

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+resource (retrieve a single message by number from an ABAP message class, citing MSAG/T100). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling GetMessageClass by clarifying that this is per-message retrieval while the parent document is what's actually returned.

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 when this is useful (fetching a specific message number), and contrasts with the whole-class document, but never explicitly names GetMessageClass as the alternative or states the condition for choosing it. Guidance is present but left to inference.

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