ARC-1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: search scope (object names only), wildcard support, return fields (object type, name, package, description, ADT URI), result mapping tips (BOR objects as SOBJ type, uri usage with SAPNavigate, objectType mapping to SAPRead), and limitations (no field/column search). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most operational aspects well.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage tips, important notes, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the core limitation earlier.

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 tool's complexity (search with wildcards, multiple object types), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering most aspects: purpose, usage, limitations, integration with siblings, and result interpretation. The main gap is lack of explicit output format details, but the return fields are listed, making it reasonably complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema (only mentioning wildcards in the context section). It doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema 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's purpose: 'Search for ABAP objects' with specific resources (classes, programs, function modules, tables, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting what it doesn't search (field/column names). It provides a clear verb ('Search') and resource scope.

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 states when to use this tool ('Searches object names only') and when not to ('field/column names are not searchable here'), with clear alternatives named (SAPRead for CDS views, SAPQuery for DD03L). It also provides integration guidance with SAPNavigate and SAPRead.

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