ReadFunctionInclude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety profile itself, and it does by declaring '[read-only]' up front. It also adds behavioral context by stating the return content is source code plus include metadata. It omits error behavior, permission requirements, and whether inactive-version reads behave differently, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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, followed by briefly useful trigger phrases and return summary. The 'Answers:' list is mild redundancy but does aid retrieval; nothing is padded at length.

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 correctly states what is returned (source code and metadata), and it discloses read-only status in the absence of annotations. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though a note on version handling or error cases would round it out.

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 all three parameters (including the active/inactive enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Read ABAP function group include source code and metadata.' This is clearly distinct from the mock-style siblings CreateFunctionInclude/UpdateFunctionInclude/DeleteFunctionInclude and from ListFunctionGroupIncludes. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stays short of a 5.

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 'Answers:' phrase list ('show function group include code', 'display include source') gives concrete trigger conditions for selecting this tool over siblings. However, it offers no when-not guidance or explicit routing to alternatives such as ListFunctionGroupIncludes for enumeration or GetInclude for generic includes.

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