sap_search_tables

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

With no annotations present, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the search matches both table names and descriptions, and it implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, error behavior, or limitations (e.g., case sensitivity, wildcards), leaving some ambiguity about the exact behavior.

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 exceptionally concise, containing just two sentences, yet it packs in the action, the resource, a clarifying example, and a usage directive. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before amplifying with the example.

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 search tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no nesting, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it searches, how it matches, and the primary use case. There are no missing critical details that would impede correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the 'keyword' parameter with a concrete example ('vendor' finds LFA1/LFB1) that goes beyond the schema's terse 'Search term' description. This helps the agent understand the intended semantic context, though it doesn't discuss max_results beyond what schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: searching the SAP Data Dictionary for tables by keyword, with a specific, illustrative example ('vendor' finds LFA1/LFB1). It distinctly separates this search/discovery function from sibling tools like sap_read_table_structure or sap_read_table_data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Use this to discover the right table before querying' provides clear context on when to use this tool (as a preliminary discovery step). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is strong enough to infer appropriate usage relative to the sibling tools that handle reading structure/data.

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