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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pricing is free, no x402 payment needed, routing is a free hosted call, and hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes while value-moving results must be finalized locally. These are important security and execution traits not disclosed by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and organized with a clear 'SAP MCP execution guidance' section. However, the second paragraph repeats much of the content already present in the input schema's description, creating minor redundancy. Still, each section is compact and relevant.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers usage sequence, pricing, routing, and signer boundary, which are the key operational concerns. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further description is needed.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds a high-level intent categorization ('agent bootstrap, routing, skills, or repair guidance') but this is already implied by the schema's enum values and field descriptions. No additional meaning is provided for includeRoadmap.

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 tool's purpose: a free orientation for SAP MCP standards mapping, listing specific standards (MCP, x402/pay.sh, A2A-style Agent Cards, OASF, AP2). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Use this after sap_agent_start', which frames its role relative to other SAP tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after sap_agent_start when an agent needs to understand...' It also gives operational instructions like 'call directly without x402' and 'keep it small/exact when possible.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks a clear exclusion clause.

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