Check ABAP released-API status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool ships offline, uses a specific snapshot date (2026-08-24), does not connect to any SAP backend, and does not modify any system or source file. This gives the agent an accurate safety and freshness profile.

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 dense but well organized: it front-loads the object types and result categories, then provides the offline/snapshot constraint, the use case, and the sibling distinction. Every sentence conveys a distinct, necessary fact with no 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?

For a lookup tool with one input and a known set of output statuses, the description is complete: it covers accepted object types, result categories, CDS successor hints, data source/snapshot, offline behavior, non-mutating behavior, and the relationship to check_cloud_readiness. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description does not need to duplicate it.

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 single parameter 'objects' is already fully described in the input schema, including the 1–200 limit, bare string vs object forms, examples, and optional disambiguation types. The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or format details, so the schema carries 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Look up ABAP repository objects ... in SAP's published ABAP Cloudification list" and reports per-object status ('released', 'deprecated', 'not-released') plus a CDS successor hint. It also differentiates itself from the sibling check_cloud_readiness, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use: "when you need to know if your code may reference a given object in ABAP Cloud, or which released CDS view to use instead of a classic table." It also names the relevant alternative, check_cloud_readiness, and explains how this tool complements it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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