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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about SAP MCP execution (pricing, routing, signer boundary), which clarifies the behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction between description and 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 contains substantial boilerplate about SAP MCP context and execution guidance that is repeated verbatim from the input schema. The core purpose is conveyed in the first two sentences, but the rest is redundant and adds length without new information, making it less concise than necessary.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) with output schema and rich annotations. The description covers the core purpose and usage context. While the boilerplate is excessive, it does not leave critical gaps. The output schema handles return values, so completeness is adequate but not exemplary.

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 100% (one parameter 'wallet' with description 'Solana public key of the agent owner wallet (base58)'). The description adds 'by owner wallet', reinforcing the semantic link. However, since the schema already explains the parameter well, the description adds minimal extra value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 'Micro-read exact SAP agent profile lookup by owner wallet', which specifies the verb (lookup), resource (agent profile), and scope (by owner wallet). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_discover_agents by saying 'use this for a known agent before read-premium discovery or enrichment', indicating it is a targeted read for a specific agent.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for a known agent before read-premium discovery or enrichment', providing clear guidance on when to use it. It implies it should not be used for discovery, but could be more specific about when not to use it or about alternative tools like sap_discover_agents. Nevertheless, the guidance is clear.

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