condition_types

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses worthwhile traits: paging via limit/offset, a performance caveat that the sales set is ~1000 rows, and that supplying condition_type switches to a full-field single-record view. It does not state read-only semantics, auth requirements, or what the paginated results contain beyond what the output schema covers.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral branches, then parameter semantics. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the telegraphic style ('application: V sales, M purchasing, TX tax') borders on cryptic for an unfamiliar agent.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and the description covers the main behavioral modes and the bulk of the 7 parameters. Remaining gaps are minor: search semantics and the meaning of the defaults are unstated.

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, and it largely does: it explains the condition_type on/off branching, limit/offset paging, the application codes (V sales, M purchasing, TX tax), that usage A means pricing, and that language is a 1-letter key. Only 'search' is left unexplained as to what fields it matches, and defaults are never restated.

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 names a specific resource ('Pricing condition types') and pins down the underlying SAP tables (T685/T685T/T685A) plus the payload ('texts, access sequence and control data'). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as pricing_procedure or read_sap_table, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It does branch on usage ('No condition_type: paged list ... prefer search, sales has ~1000'; 'with one: all filled fields'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over the sibling pricing_procedure or read_sap_table tools, so selection among alternatives is left to inference.

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