CheckDdl

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the return payload (syntax errors, warnings, messages) and the two check modes, but never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor whether the target view must already exist or what happens if it does not.

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 verb and resource, then the two modes, then the return content. No filler and nothing restated twice.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does the necessary work: what it checks, the two modes, and what comes back. The remaining gap is behavioral (read-only nature, requirements on the target object), which is a modest omission for a check-only tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description confirms the active/inactive distinction and the 'instead of the saved version' semantics of ddl_source but adds no format or interaction details beyond the schema.

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+resource combination ('perform syntax check on an ABAP CDS view'), which cleanly separates it from the other Check* siblings (CheckClass, CheckTable, CheckStructure) by object type. It stops short of the explicit sibling-contrast phrasing that would earn a 5.

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?

Makes the two operating modes explicit: check an existing view (active or inactive) or validate a hypothetical DDL source. That tells the agent which mode to pick, though it offers no exclusions or pointers to adjacent tools (CreateDdl/UpdateDdl/ActivateDdl) that a check might precede.

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