search_rfc_functions

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered by structured data. The description adds workflow context ("call this first") but says nothing about result truncation, the effect of the limit, or search cost against a live SAP system. Useful but not rich beyond the annotations.

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: the capability and its syntax come first, followed by the workflow-positioning instruction. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and explicit routing to sibling tools, an agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (pattern, group, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the wildcard syntax for pattern but adds no meaning for group or limit. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search) and resource (remote-enabled function modules / BAPIs / RFCs) plus the search key (name pattern). The distinction from get_rfc_function_interface and call_rfc_function is clear because the description frames this as the discovery step.

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?

Explicitly says "Call this first to discover available functions before get_rfc_function_interface or call_rfc_function," naming both alternatives and the order in which to invoke them. An agent has no ambiguity about when to reach for this tool versus its siblings.

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