sap_community_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool searches SAP Community for content types (blog posts, discussions, solutions), includes engagement data (kudos), ranks results by 'Best Match', and is optimized for troubleshooting. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are common for search tools, leaving some gaps.

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 structured with clear sections (e.g., 'FINDS:', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW:', 'BEST FOR TROUBLESHOOTING:'), which aids readability. However, it includes some redundant elements like repeating the function name and could be more streamlined. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting and repetition slightly reduce efficiency.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter guidance well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., result structure, pagination) and behavioral aspects like rate limits. For a tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps in contextual information.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by emphasizing that queries should 'Include error codes and specific technical details' and providing a 'BEST FOR TROUBLESHOOTING' section with practical examples. This enhances understanding but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'SEARCH SAP COMMUNITY' and specifies it 'FINDS: Blog posts, discussions, solutions from SAP Community.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'fetch' (which retrieves specific items), 'sap_help_search' (likely for SAP Help documentation), and 'search' (generic). The verb 'search' and resource 'SAP Community' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'BEST FOR TROUBLESHOOTING' with examples like including error codes and specific technical details. It also outlines a 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' where this tool is used first for searching, followed by 'fetch' for detailed posts, clearly differentiating it from alternatives and specifying its role in a sequence.

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