pricing_procedure

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful output behavior: only filled fields are returned and field_legend explains the columns, which prepares the agent for sparse, legend-driven output. It says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, or row limits, which is a gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and table identifier come first, followed by parameter hints. The semicolon-separated style is terse but readable for a domain expert.

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 return values need not be spelled out, and the field_legend note is a useful addition. Still, for a four-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the undocumented required `name` argument and unspecified `language` behavior leave the definition short of complete.

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 partially does: accepted application values (V/M/TX or empty for all) and the usage default (A = pricing) are explained. However, the required `name` parameter and the `language` parameter are never mentioned, leaving half the inputs — including the mandatory one — without meaning.

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 the specific resource and SAP table: steps of a pricing procedure from T683S, comparable to standard procedures V/08 and M/08, returned with texts. An agent can distinguish this from generic siblings like read_sap_table or condition_types. It lacks an explicit verb (get/list), but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 is only implied: the tool is clearly for inspecting pricing procedure steps, and the application/usage value hints (V/M/TX, A = pricing) steer invocation context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over read_sap_table, nor any precondition or exclusion.

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