find_assets_by_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details such as multi-space search by default, intelligent caching, a configurable 50-asset limit, and case-insensitive search. While it doesn't cover error handling or pagination, it gives a solid behavioral picture beyond the basic function.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, when to use, expected results, use cases, examples, performance notes). It is somewhat long but each section adds value and the core purpose is front-loaded. No wasted sentences, but it could be slightly more concise without losing substance.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It explicitly lists what the user will get (asset names, types, space IDs, column info, URLs), covers a wide range of use cases and example queries, and even notes performance characteristics. This fully compensates for the missing structured metadata.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces parameter usage through example queries but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It correctly mentions default behaviors like case-insensitivity and the 50-asset limit, which appear in schema defaults.

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 uses a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Find all assets (tables/views) containing a specific column name across SAP Datasphere spaces.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tables or get_table_schema, and the detailed use cases reinforce the tool's specialty in column-based discovery.

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 'Use this tool when' bullets and multiple use cases, giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use' this tool, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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