Where-Used List

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

Annotations already mark this read-only/idempotent, so the description adds the return shape and truncated flag, which is useful. However, it says 'Returns (json)' while response_format defaults to markdown in the schema, leaving the actual default output ambiguous and creating a mild description-vs-schema inconsistency.

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 supply options, return shape, and examples. Minor redundancy exists between the 'Supply either' bullets and the 'Args:' line, but overall it is compact and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers input modes, max_results, response_format, return shape, and usage context with helpful examples. The only meaningful gap is not clarifying that the default response is markdown rather than the JSON shape shown.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the object_uri vs object_type+object_name alternatives, noting function_group is needed for functions, and mapping natural-language examples to parameter values.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find all repository objects that reference a given object (where-used list).' It distinguishes this from sibling sap_search_objects by framing it as reference lookup and names sap_search_objects as the source for object_uri.

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?

'Essential before changing or deleting anything' clearly states when to use it, and 'Supply either object_uri... OR object_type + object_name' explains the primary calling modes. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or compare with other reference tools, so it falls just short of full 5.

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