Search BW objects

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: wildcard support, the returned fields (type, name, description, active state), and the truncation contract of `limit` hits plus a total count. No auth or scoping caveats, but little is left unclear for a safe read.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, when-to-use second, output/pagination contract last. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spells out returned fields and the total-count/limit behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. The gap is coverage of the type filter and source_system scoping, which affect what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema largely documents itself. The description reinforces `query` (name or description, wildcard) and `limit`/total-count semantics, but says nothing about `types` or `source_system`, leaving the agent dependent on schema text.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: find BW objects by name/description, or list InfoArea contents. Clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like bw_read or bw_describe, which an agent could easily confuse with a retrieval tool.

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?

"Use it when you do not know the exact name or want to check that a name is free" gives concrete selection criteria. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. bw_read for exact-name lookup), so routing depends on the agent inferring sibling behavior.

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