GetSqlQuery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It flags the tool as [read-only] and specifies execution via SAP ADT Data Preview API, which implies safe read operations. However, it does not disclose potential error handling, performance limits, or response format.

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 extremely concise (two effective parts) and front-loaded with the read-only annotation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and safety. It could be enhanced by mentioning the return type (table data), but it remains fairly complete.

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 description's contribution is minimal. It adds context like 'row counts' and 'filtered queries' but does not clarify parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 tool executes ABAP SQL SELECT queries on database tables and CDS views, with specific use cases (ad-hoc retrieval, row counts, filtered queries). It is distinct from sibling tools focused on activations, deletions, or full table content retrieval.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('ad-hoc data retrieval, row counts, filtered queries') but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternative sibling tools. This is a minor gap.

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