atcCheckVariant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('retrieves information'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves information. It doesn't specify what kind of information is returned (e.g., details, status, configuration) or any behavioral traits like pagination or error responses. For a retrieval tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves too much undefined.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'variant' documented as 'The name of the ATC check variant.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on variant names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('information about an ATC check variant'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other ATC-related sibling tools like 'atcChangeContact', 'atcContactUri', or 'atcWorklists', which might have overlapping or similar retrieval functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple ATC-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'atcCustomizing', 'atcWorklists'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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