search

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 useful behavioral context: auto-detection of ABAP versions, coverage of specific technologies, and that results require a follow-up 'fetch' operation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid queries.

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 (COVERS, AUTO-DETECTS, TYPICAL WORKFLOW, QUERY TIPS) but contains some redundancy (repeating 'search(query=') and could be more front-loaded. The query tips section is valuable but makes the description longer than necessary for a single-parameter tool.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and how to use it effectively. However, it doesn't explain what the search returns (just IDs for fetch operations) or address potential limitations, leaving gaps in understanding the complete tool behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing query tips with specific examples, explaining auto-detection behavior for ABAP versions, and listing the covered technologies - all meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's basic description.

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 SAP documentation across multiple technologies (ABAP, UI5, CAP, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sap_community_search' or 'sap_help_search' - it only mentions the typical workflow with 'fetch'.

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 a typical workflow showing this tool should be used first, followed by 'fetch', and includes query tips for effective use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the other search-related siblings (sap_community_search, sap_help_search, sap_help_get), leaving the distinction unclear.

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