Read Authorization Object (SU21)

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reads only the definition, not where checks occur; the activity catalog is global and fetched separately; partial failures surface as activitiesError; the 'raw' field signals unexpected release-specific structures.

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 organized into clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Notes) and is well front-loaded with purpose. It is somewhat long and partly duplicates schema parameter descriptions, but every section contributes meaningful context not found elsewhere.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return structure, optional activities/activitiesError keys, the raw field caveat, and guidance for combining with other tools. This is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret unusual results.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, but the description adds value with usage examples that tie user intents to parameter settings, such as include_activities=true for interpreting ACTVT values. It also clarifies the large size and global nature of the activity catalog.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource (authorization object definition via SU21/ADT) and names the concrete outputs: description, object class, and fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_sql_query or sap_get_transaction.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it for authorization audits and names companion tools (sap_get_transaction, sap_sql_query) for complementary lookup scenarios. The examples also map natural-language questions to concrete parameter choices.

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