sap_report_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly conveys a read-only inspection ('info', 'selection fields and saved variants') and a prerequisite relationship, but says nothing about behavior for unknown/invalid report names, auth needs, or whether variants are truncated. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe the return shape.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition first and the sequencing constraint second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, parameter format, and call ordering. It could add a note on error behavior or whether variants require authorization, but no critical calling information is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'report' parameter. It does so meaningfully by defining that the value is a tcode or program name, which is the key piece of information the bare string schema lacks.

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 states a specific resource ('a report's selection fields and saved variants') and clarifies the identifier format (tcode or program). It is not a clean verb+resource phrase, but an agent can still tell exactly what this retrieves and how it differs from run_sap_report.

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?

'Call before run_sap_report' gives an explicit ordering constraint that routes the agent to the correct sibling workflow. It doesn't state when not to use it (e.g., when selection fields are already known), but the positive guidance is concrete.

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