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

Annotations indicate write/ non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: false). The description adds critical behavioral context not in annotations: cost ('2 credits'), return format ('AI response text and a conversation_id'), and the 'no tool use' constraint. It also explains session state management (omitting vs including conversation_id).

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?

Four sentences total with no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and cost, followed by sibling comparison, return value disclosure, and session management instructions. Every clause conveys distinct information necessary for invocation.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description discloses return values (text and ID). It adequately covers the complexity of a stateful, credit-based chat tool by explaining cost, conversation threading mechanics, and output format—sufficient for correct agent usage without external documentation.

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 100% description coverage. The description reiterates the conversation_id usage pattern ('Omit... to start new; include... to continue'), but this largely mirrors the schema description 'Existing conversation ID to continue a thread (omit to start new)'. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline without significant additional semantic depth.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('Atlas Advisor') with clear scope ('lightweight hiring advice'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'atlas_chat' by noting it is 'Faster and cheaper' and has 'no tool use', making the differentiation immediate and actionable.

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?

Provides explicit comparison to sibling tool 'atlas_chat' (faster/cheaper), defines the specific use case ('best for general hiring questions'), and notes the constraint 'no tool use'. This gives the agent clear criteria for selection vs. the more extensive 'atlas_chat' alternative.

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