Get business partner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the entity-type scope but says nothing about not-found behavior, whether the response is a single object or empty, or the case-sensitivity caveat (that lives only in 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?

A single sentence with the resource and the lookup key front-loaded, and no filler. Nothing can be removed without losing 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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition gives enough to invoke it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of a not-found/response-shape note, which is minor for a straightforward lookup.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the case-sensitive HANA note, so the schema carries the burden. The description reinforces that cardCode must be exact but never mentions the optional fields projection parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one business partner") and narrows the domain with "(customer, supplier or lead)". The words "one" and "exact CardCode" implicitly separate it from the list-style sibling search_business_partners, but that sibling is never named.

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 phrase "by its exact CardCode" implies the precondition (you must already know the code) and hints that broad matching belongs elsewhere, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. An agent must infer that search_business_partners is the fallback when the code is unknown or uncertain.

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