search_sap_web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning compact results (title+URL+snippet) to minimize token usage and the API key requirement. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or behavior when sources are unavailable.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what it searches, output format, use cases, and prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still explains the return format (compact results with title, URL, snippet). It covers usage, parameters, and prerequisites comprehensively. However, it could be more explicit about the absence of complex behavior like pagination or sorting.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by providing examples for the query parameter (e.g., 'SAP Note 2081285') and clarifying sources with human-readable names, going beyond the schema enum descriptions.

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 three specific SAP resources (help.sap.com, community.sap.com, me.sap.com) via Tavily API, and returns compact results. The verb 'searches' is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like SAPSearch or search_abap_syntax.

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 explicitly lists use cases: error messages, SAP Notes, best practices, etc. It also notes the prerequisite TAVILY_API_KEY. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, which would improve the score.

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