find_sap_reports

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of returned records (program names, transaction codes, titles), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the result cap, wildcard/case-sensitivity semantics, or auth/environment requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical and examples earning their place by clarifying output content and pattern syntax. No waste.

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?

Hmm, adjust: an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still sketches the record fields. What is missing is result-limit behavior and sibling routing, which keeps it from being complete for a search tool with an undocumented `top` parameter.

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 0% for both parameters. The description adds real meaning for `pattern` by showing wildcard examples like "ZFI*" and "*AGEING*", including leading-wildcard behavior, but the `top` parameter and its default of 200 are never mentioned anywhere.

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 (Find) and resource (reports), and even defines what a report record contains (programs, transaction codes, titles). It implicitly separates itself from run_sap_report and sap_report_info by being a name-pattern lookup, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the wildcard examples make clear this is a discovery/lookup step, presumably before run_sap_report. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. sap_report_info, no statement about prerequisites (login/environment), and no exclusion guidance.

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