Report SAP Tool Invocations

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it is a write operation. The description mentions write tools require signer policy, RPC, and active SAP profile, but this is general context. No contradiction with annotations, but specific behavioral details (e.g., what happens on invocation, error scenarios) are missing.

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 sentences, each adding value: the first states the purpose, the second provides SAP context. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 presence of a complete output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and context. It covers the key aspects but could be slightly more specific about output or prerequisites for the 'invocations' parameter.

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 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 reports invocation count for a SAP tool descriptor. It provides context about the SAP MCP wrapper but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool sap_report_calls, which may have a similar purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes general SAP context about read/write tools but does not specify conditions for using this tool or compare it to similar tools like sap_report_calls.

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