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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral traits: 'hosted reads/builders never receive keypair bytes', 'value-moving results must be finalized locally', and explicit non-actions (sign, submit, authorize payment). These details help an agent avoid unauthorized or unsafe operations and are not present in the annotations alone.

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 relatively long and includes a second paragraph of 'SAP MCP execution guidance' that is partly boilerplate. The line 'Intent: SAP MCP tool workflow' is vague and does not add value. While the first paragraph is clear and structured, the overall text could be tightened without losing critical information.

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 description effectively conveys the tool's role, output (unsigned planning artifact), and safety boundaries, which is sufficient given the rich input schema and presence of an output schema. It does not explain error conditions, but that is not required for a read-only planning tool with good annotations. The guidance about free routing and signer boundaries adds operational completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with individual parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions high-level categories (spend limits, allow-lists, confirmation thresholds) but does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning comprehensively.

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 function: 'converts a user intent into a bounded, unsigned planning artifact' with specific components like spend limits, allow-lists, and thresholds. It distinguishes itself from signing/submitting tools by explicitly saying what it does not do ('does not sign, submit, authorize payment'), which sets it apart from sibling tools like sap_sign_transaction or sap_submit_signed_transaction.

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 clear context that this is a planning/preparation tool, not an execution tool, and includes routing guidance ('Pricing: free; call directly without x402'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools but implicitly tells the agent to use it when constructing a mandate and to use signing/finalization tools separately. This is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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