List SAP calculation views

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies the schema source (_SYS_BIC) and the support for prefix filtering and pagination, which are behavioral traits the agent needs to know.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and no irrelevant detail. Every word adds value.

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 list tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the source schema, the item type, and key capabilities. It lacks details on return format or ordering, but those are not critical for selection.

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 low (only prefix has a description). The description compensates by explicitly mentioning 'prefix filter' and 'pagination', which explains the roles of limit/offset and prefix. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail limits or defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('calculation views from the _SYS_BIC schema'), with context (SAP BW/S4 analytical views). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hana_list_views and hana_search_tables.

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 clearly indicates the intended use case (SAP BW/S4 analytical views) and implicitly distinguishes it from generic view listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide tool selection.

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