get_business_object_template

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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden; it correctly conveys a read-only retrieval and specifies the returned structure. It does not disclose error behavior for an unknown businessObject, whether the name lookup is case-sensitive, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the return payload is front-loaded, followed by the motivating use case. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the return fields, so an agent knows what a call yields. The remaining gap is failure/pagination behavior for an invalid object name, which is minor for a read-only 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%, so both businessObject and requiredOnly are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ("Get the field schema (template) of a business object") and enumerates exactly what that schema contains: field IDs, names, display names and required flags. This differentiates it from get_business_object, which would not return the field template.

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?

"Use this to learn which fields exist before creating, updating or searching records" gives a clear when-to-use context and implicitly ties the tool to the write/search siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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