SearchObject

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

The description begins with '[read-only]', which indicates no side effects. It explains the search behavior but does not detail pagination, case sensitivity, or error handling. Given no annotations, this is adequate 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 concise but includes examples and use cases. It is front-loaded with the read-only tag and main purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 search tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and use cases. It is complete but could mention the return format or limitations of maxResults.

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%, and the description adds value by providing examples for object_name and listing many valid object types for object_type. This enriches the semantic understanding 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 it searches the ABAP repository by object name or wildcard pattern, provides examples like 'ZOK*', and lists the types of questions it answers. It distinguishes itself from sibling Get* tools by focusing on pattern-based search across all object types.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'find object X', 'does X exist'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like specific Get* tools for known objects.

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