sap_read_change_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Query'), the source tables (CDHDR/CDPOS), and the output intent ('who changed what data and when'), but omits authorization requirements, response shape, and edge-case behavior. The absence of annotations makes these gaps notable, though the tool's safe read intent is at least implied.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the verb, resource, and output value, and the second gives a clear prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, source tables, return concept, and a mandatory-looking prerequisite. It doesn't explain the difference from sap_read_change_docs_v2 or discuss what happens when no object_class is supplied, but the schema already documents parameter details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to use sap_discover_change_object to obtain the correct OBJECTCLAS, which directly aids the object_class parameter; it also suggests the broader table context for object_id and object_class.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Query change documents from CDHDR/CDPOS tables', and clarifies the value with 'Shows who changed what data and when.' It is clearly not a tautology and easily tells the agent what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling sap_read_change_docs_v2.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use sap_discover_change_object first to find the correct OBJECTCLAS', giving actionable workflow guidance and naming a related tool. It does not, however, state when this tool is preferable to sap_read_change_docs_v2 or list exclusions.

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