Describe a stored procedure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specificity by naming the exact source view (SYS.PROCEDURE_PARAMETERS) and the returned fields, giving the agent a clear model of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and behavioral model, making it optimally concise and front-loaded.

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, read-only metadata tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not need to explain defaults or error cases given the schema descriptions and strong annotations; the context is sufficiently 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. The mention of IN/OUT/INOUT refers to result content rather than input parameters, so the description does not go beyond schema coverage; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Return parameter names, types, data types, and positions') tied to a specific system view (SYS.PROCEDURE_PARAMETERS), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hana_describe_table or hana_describe_function by focusing on stored procedure 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 implies usage when a stored procedure's parameter signature is needed, and the system view reference provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., hana_describe_function for functions) or mention any exclusion criteria, leaving usage guidance only implicit.

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