RuntimeGetGatewayErrorLog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only via the [read-only] tag, describes batch-mode behavior where the call returns empty content and is later read by number — a genuinely non-obvious trait. It omits auth/authorization requirements and pagination/truncation behavior for max_results, keeping it below 5.

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/runtime tags and the core action, then return fields, then modes, then the batch caveat — logical order with no filler. The batch sentence is long but carries information unavailable elsewhere; minor density cost from bracketed tags.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (type, shortText, transactionId, dateTime, username) and the detail fields (serviceInfo, errorContext, sourceCode, callStack). For a 5-param read-only tool this is nearly complete; only pagination/limit behavior and authorization needs are unaddressed.

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 five parameters (from, to, user, error_url, max_results) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces error_url's mode-switching role but adds no new syntax or constraints for the time range, user filter, or max_results beyond what the schema states.

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 (List SAP Gateway error log /IWFND/ERROR_LOG) and explicitly covers the two modes: listing versus retrieving a single error's detail via error_url. The sibling list contains many Runtime* tools, and this description makes clear it is about the gateway error log specifically, not feeds, dumps, or system messages.

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 condition selecting detail mode is stated explicitly ("With error_url returns full detail"), which is the key routing decision. It also explains batch-mode recording semantics. It does not name any sibling alternative (e.g. RuntimeListFeeds, RuntimeListSystemMessages) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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