sap_search_tree_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context: only searches already loaded/expanded nodes, case-insensitive substring match, and option to search in a specific column. No contradictions.

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?

Four clear paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value: first paragraph states function, second gives use cases, third details parameter options, fourth highlights limitation with actionable resolution. No wasted 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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It provides all necessary context for a tree search tool, including a key limitation and reference to a sibling tool (sap_get_tree_node_children).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains tree_id and search_text as required, column for specific column search, and max_results with defaults. However, it does not detail possible values or formats for tree_id or search_text beyond obvious usage.

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 for tree nodes by text and returns matches with full ancestor paths. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'tree nodes', and distinguishes from siblings like sap_find_tree_node_by_path by focusing on text search within loaded nodes.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (deep trees, same labels in multiple branches) and when not to use (collapsed subtrees not searched). Provides guidance to expand parent nodes using sap_get_tree_node_children with expand=true before searching, which is a clear alternative step.

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