ListATCCheckVariants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that the operation is a non-mutating list that returns variant names and descriptions. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether results are system-scoped or user-scoped, or any caching/refresh behavior for what is presumably live system state.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return payload, then the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the agent needs: what it lists, what it returns, and when to call it. It could be more complete by naming RunATC explicitly as the follow-up tool and clarifying the system scope, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed.

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 and resource ('List available ATC check variants') and scopes it to the SAP system, with a note that it returns names and descriptions. It is clearly distinct from the many Get*/Export* siblings, though the differentiation from RunATC is only implied rather than stated by name.

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?

'Use this to discover which check variants are available before running ATC checks' gives a clear condition for invocation and implies the RunATC workflow it precedes. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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