atcCheckVariant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('retrieves information'), but does not specify error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned information. 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, straightforward sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format, which are needed for full comprehension in the absence of structured data.

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 'variant' parameter clearly documented as 'The name of the ATC check variant.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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?

The description states the tool 'retrieves information about an ATC check variant,' which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'atcChangeContact,' 'atcContactUri,' or 'atcWorklists,' leaving ambiguity about its unique scope or function within the ATC-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid variant name, or comparisons to other ATC tools like 'atcCustomizing' or 'atcWorklists,' which could help an agent decide appropriately.

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