get_rfc_function_interface

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns resolved structure fields and documented exceptions, and it is framed as a prerequisite step. It does not elaborate on remote-system behavior, authentication, or rate limits, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return content, followed by an imperative usage rule. Every sentence carries value and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter introspection tool with a 100%-covered schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what is returned, why the tool matters relative to call_rfc_function, and does not need to spell out return values because the output schema does that.

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 the single function_name parameter is already clearly documented. The description does not add syntax, naming rules, or formatting details beyond saying the tool operates on a function module, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: return the full parameter interface and documented exceptions for a function module. It distinguishes itself from the adjacent invocation tool by explaining that it must be called before call_rfc_function.

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 gives a clear usage rule: always call this before call_rfc_function to know required parameters and their shapes. It does not state when not to use it or name any alternative introspection path, so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives standard.

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