GetServiceDefinition

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description correctly focuses on extra context: the ~NW 7.54 / S/4HANA requirement and the paging strategy for large definitions. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful operational behavior beyond what structured fields state.

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 two tight sentences: the first states purpose and prerequisite, the second gives the paging tip. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 read-only source-code retrieval with three self-describing parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, platform requirement, and large-definition handling. It doesn't describe the exact return envelope, but the schema's parameter descriptions and annotations provide enough surrounding context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the maxLines cap and the startLine 'Beyond EOF' behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It adds the strategic advice to page through large definitions, but it does not materially expand individual parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('RAP Service Definition (SRVD) source code'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates the tool from the sibling Get* tools by naming the exact ABAP object type, SRVD, rather than a generic resource.

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 gives concrete usage context by recommending startLine/maxLines paging for large definitions instead of retrieving everything at once. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related siblings like GetBehaviorDefinition or GetCDSView, leaving tool selection partially to inference.

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