sap_lookup_t100

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 clearly implies a read-only lookup and discloses the return content: 'full message text with placeholder descriptions.' It does not describe not-found behavior or language fallback, but for a simple lookup tool this is a minor gap.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the operation, the trigger scenario, and the expected return. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 three-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it answers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The missing pieces are explicit sibling differentiation and behavior when the message is not found, but these are relatively small given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, patterns, and constraints (100% coverage). The description adds useful examples of message codes and identifies the two key parameters, but it does not provide substantial semantic value beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Look up a specific SAP T100 message') and the identifying fields (message class and number), with concrete examples. It is specific about the resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sap_lookup_error or sap_diagnose_message, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: use when a message code like 'ME 003' or 'MM 001' appears in error messages, dumps, or syslog entries. It does not mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear and contextually sufficient.

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