sap_help_get_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cleaned text content,' which indicates the output is processed rather than raw HTML, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. This is a moderate level of transparency, neither minimal nor comprehensive.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, and the second gives a usage hint and output type. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter. It clearly states the input type and the cleaned-text output, and the context signals show there are no nested objects or enums. It lacks examples or error scenarios, but for this complexity, the description is nearly complete, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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 description for the 'url' parameter covers its meaning and format ('URL or path of the SAP Help page'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter details beyond saying to use URLs from search results, which is a minor contextual hint. Thus, 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'full content of a specific SAP Help page,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or list products. It also notes that it returns 'cleaned text content,' adding clarity about the output.

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 instruction 'Use URLs from search results' provides a clear context for when to invoke this tool, implying it is complementary to search tools. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling names make this differentiation obvious, and the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool after a search.

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