Describe a function

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source table (SYS.FUNCTION_PARAMETERS) and what is returned, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior if the function doesn't exist) or any permission requirements, so it provides only moderate additional transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and return content. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (parameter names, types, data types, positions), which covers the return-value expectations. Combined with complete annotations and clear schema, the tool is adequately described for its simple purpose. It could mention default schema behavior, but that is covered by the schema definition.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 3 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that it returns function parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('parameter names, types, data types, and positions for a function') and identifies the source view SYS.FUNCTION_PARAMETERS. It distinguishes itself from sibling describe tools (e.g., hana_describe_table, hana_describe_procedure) by focusing specifically on function parameters.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you need function parameter details. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. A 4 is appropriate because there is no confusion about its intended use, though no explicit 'use instead of X' guidance is provided.

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