search_abap_keyword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching keywords with documentation links, which is useful. However, it does not mention details such as case sensitivity, result limits, or whether any authentication is needed, leaving gaps for a search operation.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, with the purpose stated first and the return value succinctly added. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately clarifies what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly richer with mention of expected result format or edge cases, but for a search-style tool it is largely complete.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'keyword' with a clear description and examples (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Search for ABAP keywords,' which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'ABAP keywords in the official ABAP Index,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_abap_index (which likely lists the index) and lookup_glossary (which suggests glossary terms). The return value is also stated, adding clarity.

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?

The description implies usage for searching ABAP keywords, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools like lookup_glossary or get_abap_index. There are no direct exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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