Search SAP products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behaviour: partial/shorthand-tolerant matching and the shape of the return (support dates, status, risk assessment). It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or permission/auth needs, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the parenthetical examples earn their space by disambiguating input format.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation block, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and match semantics. It is close to complete for a search tool, with only pagination behaviour and filter interplay left unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for the query parameter by clarifying that shorthand forms like 'ECC EHP8' resolve correctly, but it says nothing about how status or category filters interact with the search.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search SAP product versions in PAM') and even clarifies matching behaviour with concrete shorthand examples. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like pam_get_product or pam_summary, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the name-based lookup path for discovering product versions, contrasting implicitly with pam_get_product (single record) and pam_expiring (lifecycle focus). However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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