Search Repository Objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by documenting wildcard syntax, the JSON return shape, ADT type codes, and the empty-result behavior, which are not inferable from annotations.

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 well organized with clear sections (intro, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and front-loads the purpose. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the 100%-covered schema, but it is compact and every other section earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, type-code mapping, bounds, examples, error behavior, and exclusions, making it actionable without needing hidden context. The markdown output format is not detailed, but the json option is fully defined and annotations cover safety.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions (query wildcard, max_results bounds, response_format enum). It adds examples, but these are illustrative rather than new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Quick-search the ABAP repository for objects ... by name pattern,' listing concrete object kinds. It also disambiguates itself from related siblings by saying not to use it to read source or table data, so an agent can distinguish it from sap_get_source and sap_read_table.

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?

It explicitly names when not to use the tool ('Don't use to read source...' and '...or table data') and gives the alternative tools. The example prompts ('Find custom FI programs' -> query 'ZFI*') also demonstrate when the tool should be chosen.

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