Check ABAP released-API status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) indicate no side effects. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool uses a bundled snapshot, operates offline, does not connect to SAP systems, and that 'absent from the list' means 'not-released as of snapshot'. It also mentions providing curated CDS successor hints for common tables. This comprehensive behavioral disclosure exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 detailed but well-organized, starting with the main function, then elaborating on scope, limitations, and an example. While not the most concise, every sentence contributes useful information. The structure is clear, with key points front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall effective.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present) and the annotations already handling safety and idempotency, the description leaves no gaps. It covers intended use, limitations, snapshot date, offline nature, what results mean, and how it relates to system ATC. It is fully self-contained for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has full coverage of 'objects' parameter description (100%). Description adds value beyond schema by explaining the purpose of the parameter in context (objects to check for API status), giving an example format, specifying min/max items, and clarifying that the tool returns statuses. This enriches the schema's basic description, thus earning a 4.

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 function: looking up ABAP repository objects against SAP's Cloudification list and reporting their API status (released, deprecated, not-released). It specifies the resource (ABAP repository objects) and action (check status), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'check_cloud_readiness' by noting that aspect is left to ATC. The example invocation further clarifies usage.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: to determine if code can reference objects in ABAP Cloud or to find a released CDS view replacement for classic tables. It also states when not to rely solely on it (not a substitute for ATC) and that the system's own list is authoritative. It highlights limitations (offline snapshot, not real-time) and provides alternatives by mentioning 'check_cloud_readiness' as a complementary tool.

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