SearchBopfBusinessObjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the source registry table, wildcard support in both query and package, and exactly which fields are returned (name, object category, generated flag, plus package when filtered). It omits permission requirements and any rate/limit behavior, but that is minor for a read-oriented search tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then wildcard/return information; each sentence adds practical value. Slight duplication of the wildcard detail from the schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description appropriately explains the returned fields and conditional package name. It is complete enough for a filtered search tool, though it could optionally note the result cap or read-only nature.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates wildcard usage for query and package with examples that already appear in the schema, and does not add meaning for objcat or max_results beyond what the schema documents.

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') and resource ('BOPF/BOBF Business Objects') plus the backing registry table, which clearly distinguishes it from SearchRapBo (different object type) and GetBopfBusinessObject (retrieval vs search). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of 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?

Implies when to use it (finding BOPF/BOBF objects by name pattern) and gives wildcard examples for query/package, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to use this over GetBopfBusinessObject or SearchObject, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so it is only implied guidance.

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