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

Annotations provide critical behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), but the description adds value by specifying that it deletes 'an existing' function, implying it requires pre-existence. It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it could mention more (e.g., permissions, side effects), it offers useful context beyond the structured data.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and 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?

For a destructive tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the schema and annotation gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description fails to add any semantic meaning beyond what the bare schema provides. It doesn't explain what 'businessObjectName' or 'functionName' represent, their formats, or examples, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('an existing Business Object Function'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'businessobject-delete' or 'businessobject-function-update', which would require 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'businessobject-function-update' or 'businessobject-delete'. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of purpose.

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