SearchRapBo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation returns only the best matching technical name (implying a ranked, single-result search), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication or special permissions are required, or how ties or no-match cases are handled. Some behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant or filler content. The core action and return value are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and return value. It could be more complete by mentioning result handling (e.g., multiple matches, no match) or routing to alternatives, but the essentials are present.

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% (the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Search term to find RAP Business Objects by description'). The description adds no syntax, format, or matching details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (RAP Business Objects) and specifies the return value (best matching technical name). The term 'RAP' distinguishes it from sibling SearchBopfBusinessObjects (BOPF) and generic SearchObject, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied: search by description when the technical name is unknown. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like SearchBopfBusinessObjects or GetBehaviorForRapBo, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Implied usage only.

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