Plan SAP Agent Identity

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

The description claims 'read-only' and 'never signs', yet the annotation readOnlyHint is false, indicating a contradiction. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about whether the tool modifies state. No other behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) are mentioned beyond the contradictory claim.

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 concise (two sentences plus a context line) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined. No unnecessary repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no required fields), the description covers the main use case and workflow positioning. With an output schema referenced, return values need not be explained. However, it lacks detail on the planning output content and fails to resolve the readOnly contradiction, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description provides overarching context (e.g., 'pricing metadata') but does not add individual parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a 'Free read-only planner' for SAP agent identity tasks, including registration, updates, and linking. It explicitly lists the resources involved (Metaplex, SNS, x402) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_payments_register_agent by being a planning step.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this before sap_payments_register_agent or sap_payments_update_agent'. It also clarifies what it does not do ('does not touch chain and never signs'), providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the guidance is strong.

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