GetTransaction

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 behavioral context by advising pagination for large results, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds practical usage advice, though it doesn't disclose any other edge cases like rate limits or error behavior. The additional context earns a solid score.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives actionable pagination advice. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains zero filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it an exemplar of concise, effective tool documentation.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It provides the core purpose and the critical pagination guidance. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. It could mention what 'details' include (e.g., fields, structure) but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity. Overall, an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (transaction_name, startLine, maxLines) having descriptive text. The description mentions startLine/maxLines for pagination, reinforcing their purpose, but adds no new detail beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema carries the semantic burden, the description's contribution is marginal, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Retrieve ABAP transaction details', which is a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GetFunction or GetTable, the resource type (ABAP transaction) is distinct and the name reinforces the purpose. It's clear enough for an agent to know what it does, though it doesn't explicitly say what 'details' entails.

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 provides explicit guidance on pagination ('use startLine/maxLines to page through it') for large results, which is helpful. However, it does not give guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since siblings target different ABAP objects, the usage context is implied but not explicit. The pagination advice is a clear plus, but lacks comparative usage direction.

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