GetProgram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it declares read-only, states that the answer is the part read, and discloses the non-obvious batch-mode contract (recorded by number, returns empty content, answer retrieved later via BatchAnswers). It stops short of error behavior (missing/inactive program) or authorization requirements.

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 read-only marker and the core verb+resource, and every following clause contributes (part selection, return value, batch behavior). The second half is dense and mixes three ideas in one sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return value and the batch-mode empty-content response. For a 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the only meaningful gap is error/edge-case behavior for nonexistent or inactive programs.

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 both enum parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description is only restating the source/metadata and active/inactive meaning. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds mnemonic reinforcement but no new syntax or format detail.

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 (Reads) and resource (the ABAP program/report named by program_name), and enumerates the two selectable parts (source vs ADT metadata). It does not differentiate itself from near siblings such as GetProgramVersions, GetProgramVersionSource, or CheckProgram, so an agent must infer that this reads the current/active version rather than a version history.

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: 'part' and 'version' defaults tell the agent how to shape a call, but nothing says when to choose this over CheckProgram, GetProgramVersions, or GetProgramVersionSource. The 'in one request' phrasing hints at the batch/version siblings but never names an alternative or an exclusion.

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