sap_check_notes_relevancy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well. It reveals that the tool is a composite, classifies each note via the /classify_note_v2 gateway endpoint, aggregates results, and explains an important edge case around notes not downloaded into SNOTE. It stops short of describing the full result shape or potential dependencies, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the internal mechanism and the critical caveat with follow-up instructions. Every sentence contributes distinct value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter composite tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, internal behavior, aggregation behavior, and an important edge-case condition with recommended next steps. It does not fully enumerate the result fields beyond needs_download, but it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to act on its output.

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% and the single parameter note_ids is already well described with an example format. The description adds context that multiple notes can be checked and that notes are classified individually, but this is not essential beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Check relevancy of one or more SAP Note numbers against this system' with concrete dimensions such as component/SP levels, download state, and implementation readiness. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sap_scan_security_notes, which focuses on security scanning rather than per-note relevancy classification.

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 gives conditional follow-up guidance: notes never downloaded into SNOTE are reported with needs_download=true, and the agent should 'run sap_download_note_v2 (requires OSS connectivity) or sap_upload_note_v2 first for a definitive verdict.' This names specific alternatives and the exact condition under which to use them, providing actionable usage guidance.

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