Get message processing log properties

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already covers the read-only nature, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds that the tool retrieves specific header properties, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details like error handling, empty results, or performance characteristics. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and target, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the return format. It states the properties are 'custom header properties' but does not describe the structure (e.g., a map or list) or what happens if no properties exist. This leaves some ambiguity, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It mentions 'for a message log entry' which implies the message_guid is an identifier, but it does not explicitly describe its format, required status, or purpose beyond that. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 the tool's purpose: it retrieves custom header properties (SAP_ApplicationID, business IDs) for a specific message log entry. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'custom header properties' and the specific examples distinguish it from sibling tools that fetch logs, errors, attachments, or runs.

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 implies its use case by specifying the type of data it returns, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not say 'use this when you need only custom headers' or contrast it with get_message_processing_logs. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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