Find SAP Object Successor

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the tool finds 'released' successors and is used for migration, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction is present.

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 concise (three sentences) effectively front-loaded with the main purpose and key use cases. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity and the rich annotations/schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of successor objects), but the current information is sufficient for a competent agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'MARA', 'CL_AUNIT_ASSERT') and clarifying case-insensitive partial matching, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Find the released successor(s) of a deprecated or non-released SAP object' and gives concrete examples like 'MARA' to 'I_PRODUCT'. This verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_search_objects or sap_get_object_details which serve different purposes.

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 mentions 'Essential for ABAP Cloud migration' and 'Also useful for checking if a deprecated API has a modern replacement', providing clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand appropriate scenarios.

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