SAPSearch

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the db source requires 'sql scope and SAP_ALLOW_FREE_SQL=true', explains the 'splitBrain' array behavior when sources disagree, notes BOR objects appear as SOBJ, and covers how uri/objectType feed other tools. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the read-only hint.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into numbered modes with a tips section. It's dense but every sentence adds value — no wasted words. Slightly long but appropriately so for a multi-mode tool with nuanced behaviors.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and readOnly-only annotations, the description covers the purpose, all modes, parameter semantics, cross-tool integration (uri feeds SAPNavigate, objectType feeds SAPRead/SAPWrite/SAPActivate), and edge cases (orphan/ghost rows, splitBrain). Nothing critical is unexplained for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it clarifies searchType 'object' is default and tadir_lookup does exact cross-package lookup, explains query applies comma/whitespace-separated names for tadir_lookup, details the source enum values (adt uses info-system endpoint, db uses SQL against TADIR), and explains objectTypes for multiple type filters. Each parameter's behavior is enriched beyond the schema.

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 'Search for ABAP objects, exact object-directory entries, or source code' and enumerates two distinct modes (object search default, tadir_lookup). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating searches object NAMES only and directing field-name searches to SAPRead/SAPQuery, clearly differentiating from associated tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer tadir_lookup over 'long SAPQuery TADIR IN-lists', and directs users away for field-name searches ('for field names use SAPRead... or SAPQuery on DD03L'). It also explains when source='db' is advantageous (surfaces orphan/ghost rows) versus the adt default.

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