SearchObject

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

The annotations already declare this tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat safety guarantees. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are returned as 'textual XML' and startLine/maxLines page that XML 'when its serialized size is still large.' This clarifies the response format and pagination behavior.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The main purpose comes first, followed by the two parameter groups that matter for controlling output volume and pagination. Every phrase 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 schema covers parameters in detail, annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description covers the otherwise undocumented response shape ('textual XML') and pagination semantics. It does not enumerate the XML contents, but with no output schema and a generic search tool, this is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuinely useful semantic distinction: maxResults limits the number of matched objects, while startLine/maxLines page the returned textual XML. This is meaningfully more than the individual schema descriptions provide.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Search for ABAP objects using quick search.' This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the sibling Get* tools, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicitly stated.

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 generic 'Search for ABAP objects' wording implies this is the right tool when the agent is not targeting one specific object type, but the description does not explicitly say when to use SearchObject instead of the Get* siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions, so usage guidance relies on the sibling tool names for context.

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