sap_search_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a search operation returning metadata (names and descriptions), but does not disclose search matching semantics, case-sensitivity, or default result limiting behavior (max_results is left to the schema).

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 short sentences with no filler; action and output are front-loaded. Every word 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 simple two-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential outcome (table names and descriptions). It stops short of naming alternatives or search edge cases, but the core context an agent needs to call the tool is present.

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 both keyword and max_results are already defined. The description only echoes the keyword concept without adding format, syntax, or additional behavioral meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Data Dictionary for tables matching a keyword.' It also describes the return type ('table names and descriptions'), making the tool's purpose distinct from data-reading and field-metadata siblings.

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 usage context: use when you have a keyword and need to locate dictionary tables, rather than when you already know the table name or need to read data. However, it does not explicitly discuss when-not-to-use or name alternative sibling tools.

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