Search SAP Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes only the notion of paging through a full catalog, and omits return format, page-size behavior or what the cursor represents, so it adds little beyond the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the fallback hint. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a six-parameter discovery tool.

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?

With six parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It omits pagination mechanics, filter semantics and what the search returns, leaving an agent to guess at most inputs.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description names only two implied inputs (keyword query and category). The meaning of name, risk, limit and cursor — especially the cursor's numeric pagination token and the risk enum — is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (search/page) and resource (the complete SAP tool catalog), which is enough to tell it apart from the invoke_* and describe siblings that act on individual capabilities. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which would push it to a 5.

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?

"Use category browsing when keyword search misses" gives a concrete fallback for one alternative input within the same tool, which is real guidance. It says nothing, however, about when to reach for this tool rather than sap.capability.describe or the invoke_* siblings, so usage is only partially implied.

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