sap_help_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 what the tool searches (SAP Help Portal) and what content it covers, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or the format of search results. The description adds useful context about the source and content scope but lacks operational details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (SEARCHES, COVERS, TYPICAL WORKFLOW, BEST PRACTICES) and uses bullet points effectively. While somewhat detailed, every section adds value and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose. The tool name repetition in the first line is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what content is searched, how to use it effectively, and its place in a workflow. It could benefit from mentioning what the search results look like (e.g., list of documents with IDs/titles) since there's no output schema, but otherwise covers the essential context well given the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single query parameter. The description adds value by providing best practices for constructing effective queries with specific examples of product names and tasks, and shows the typical query format with examples like 'product + topic'. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter documentation.

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 the SAP Help Portal, specifying it covers product guides, implementation guides, and technical documentation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sap_community_search and sap_help_get by focusing specifically on the official SAP Help Portal content rather than community forums or retrieving specific results.

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 versus alternatives, showing a typical workflow where this search tool is followed by sap_help_get to retrieve specific results. It also offers best practices for constructing effective queries, including specific product names and tasks.

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