sap_help_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the shape of the return data (titles, URLs, snippets, product info), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a search tool, the behavior is largely obvious, but there is room for more transparency.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action ('Search SAP Help Portal documentation'), and every word contributes meaning. It efficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it without any fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential return values (titles, URLs, snippets, product info), which is important given the lack of an output schema. It also captures the broad scope ('across all SAP documentation'). It does not explicitly mention optional filters, but those are fully described in the schema. Overall, the description is complete enough for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all five parameters have individual descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool searches SAP Help Portal documentation using keywords and that it returns topic titles, URLs, snippets, and product info. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (semantic search, list products, get page) by explicitly mentioning 'specific keyword searches'.

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 clear context: 'Use this for specific keyword searches across all SAP documentation.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies when this tool is appropriate versus semantic search or listing products. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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