sap_search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool queries SAP Help Portal and public community sources, which implies a read-oriented external search. However, it does not mention what the response contains, whether there are rate limits, whether authentication is needed, or any other operational caveats.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second adds specific sources, the third gives use cases, and the fourth provides the crucial distinction from sap_lookup_error. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sources, use cases, and exclusion criteria well. The only notable omission is the shape or format of returned results, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool.

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%, with clear descriptions and examples for both query and max_results. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already documents meanings, defaults, and constraints.

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 and resource: 'Search SAP documentation and community for information on any SAP topic.' It names concrete sources and explicitly contrasts itself with sap_lookup_error, making the tool's identity and scope immediately clear.

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 states when to use it ('research SAP concepts, find best practices, or look up configuration guides') and when not to use it ('not specific error messages'), directly naming the sibling alternative sap_lookup_error. This gives an agent strong selection guidance.

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