GetTable

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context that the result can be large and that pagination is available instead of retrieving everything at once. It does not mention output shape or default limits, but those are partially covered by the schema.

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 sentences with a front-loaded purpose statement and a single actionable tip. The second sentence is slightly redundant since 'page through the result' already implies avoiding full retrieval, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 tool with complete parameter schema, the pagination warning is helpful, but the description leaves ambiguity about what 'table structure' returns and never states the default response format. Given no output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 parameters are already documented. The description only groups startLine/maxLines into a pagination behavior without adding details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Retrieve ABAP table structure,' naming a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like GetTableContents or GetStructure, and the large-table pagination hint slightly muddies whether this returns metadata or row data, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is a pagination tip for large tables: 'use startLine/maxLines to page through the result instead of retrieving it all at once.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusion statement, so an agent must infer tool selection from the name and first phrase.

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