cc_lookup_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: returns multiple entries if both DDLS and BDEF exist, and classifies not found objects as Level C. It also mentions default deployment and response format. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or authentication needs.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. Every sentence adds value: it states purpose, lists return fields, and covers edge cases. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and covers edge cases (duplicate entries, not found). For a 4-parameter lookup tool, it is complete and provides enough context for correct usage.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema by providing examples for object_name, explaining the effect of omitting object_type, expanding enum values for deployment_target and response_format. This clarifies parameter usage.

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 looks up a single ABAP object by name and returns Clean Core classification. It specifies the return fields and mentions special cases like returning both entries if the object exists as CDS view and RAP business object.

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 for looking up a single object but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cc_search_objects or cc_list_object_types. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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