account_determination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioural trait: that '*' returns SAP sample charts (noise) and should only be used when explicitly asked. It implicitly reads as a read-only configuration lookup but never says so, and it omits whether results come from a live SAP system, whether they are cached, and how large the output can get when '*' is used.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by key examples and then scope rules — a sensible order with little filler. The parenthetical SAP acronyms are dense but genuinely load-bearing for a domain agent, though the run-on parameter sentence could be split for readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description rightly avoids explaining return values while still noting that G/L names are included. Given six optional parameters and no annotations, the main residual gap is that nothing states the read-only nature of the call or what an empty result means.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does for five of six: transaction with five concrete key examples (WRX, BSX, GBB, PRD, KDM), chart_of_accounts empty-vs-wildcard semantics, and the SAP field mappings for valuation_class (BKLAS), account_modifier (KOMOK) and valuation_modifier (BWMOD). Only 'language' is left unexplained (it has a default of 'E'), and the accepted value format for the modifier fields is not illustrated.

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 states the specific resource (MM account determination, OBYC/T030) and the key value-add (G/L account names), which is precise enough for a domain agent to know what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbours such as grir_differences or condition_types, so an agent must infer the boundary from the domain terms alone.

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?

Usage guidance is present but parameter-scoped rather than task-scoped: 'chart_of_accounts: empty = the configured chart(s); "*" = all incl. SAP sample charts (only if asked)' tells the agent when to expand scope and when not to. There is no explicit statement of when to call this vs. grir_differences or condition_types, nor any prerequisite such as needing an SAP session first.

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