sap_read_where_used

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying tables, the forward/inverse behavior, and the 'Where-Used List' equivalence. The explicit warning about timeouts on tables like MARA, KNA1, and LFA1 adds valuable performance context. It does not detail return format or pagination, but the query nature is clear.

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 plus a critical warning, with no redundancy. The core purpose and direction semantics are front-loaded, and the timeout warning is placed at the end where it serves as an actionable note. 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and how to avoid common failures. It explains the result concept ('what objects use a given object' or 'what a given object uses') and covers the important performance caveat. It could be more complete with explicit return-value or pagination details, but the current coverage is adequate.

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 input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions and examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly warning that name_filter should be used for heavily-used tables like MARA to avoid timeouts, which is non-obvious operational guidance.

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 names a specific verb ('Queries'), a resource (SAP's cross-reference tables WBCROSSGT/WBCROSSI), and a well-known SAP concept ('Where-Used List'). It clearly defines forward vs inverse semantics, making it easy to distinguish from generic SAP read tools like sap_read_object_details or sap_search_tables.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining it queries cross-reference tables and provides a timeout-avoidance guideline for heavy tables. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with sibling tools, so the agent has to infer the boundary from the function name and description.

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