SearchObject

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

Despite having no annotations, the description includes a '[read-only]' tag, clearly indicating it is a safe read operation. It also notes wildcard support and optional type filtering, providing necessary behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like authorization requirements or performance characteristics, which would be expected given zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, example queries, and supported types. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action and wildcard pattern example. Every sentence 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?

The description covers input well but does not explain the return format or behavior for large result sets (e.g., whether maxResults is a hard limit or soft limit, pagination). There is no output schema to compensate, so the description should provide at least a brief note on what is returned (e.g., object names and types).

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing many example object types (PROG, CLAS, INTF, etc.) beyond the schema's single example, but the schema already provides adequate parameter descriptions. The enrichment is modest.

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's purpose: search ABAP repository by object name or wildcard pattern. It provides example queries ('find object X', 'does X exist') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by supporting all repository object types with optional type filtering. This strongly differentiates it from specific getter tools like GetClass or GetTable.

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 implies when to use this tool through example questions ('search for program/class/table by name') and mentions it supports wildcards, suggesting it's appropriate when exact object name is unknown. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like GetObjectsByType for non-wildcard filtered lists.

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