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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: specifies the return structure ('Returns a context object with id'), declares cost ('Free'), and confirms workflow position. Annotations already establish the safety profile (destructive: false, readOnly: false), so the description appropriately focuses on return value and cost rather than repeating safety warnings.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return value, integration instructions, and metadata (cost/workflow position). Each sentence delivers distinct, high-value information necessary for tool selection.

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?

Adequate for workflow integration but gaps remain in input documentation. While it correctly identifies the return value (id) and mentions output schema exists, the description lacks guidance on the required company_name parameter, the is_default flag behavior, or the complex hiring_context object structure with its nested budget ranges.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by introducing the 'company profile' concept (mapping to company_name) and 'hiring context' object purpose. However, it fails to explain critical parameters like is_default, company_size enum values, or the nested budget_ranges structure, leaving significant semantic gaps for the 6 undocumented parameters.

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 explicitly states the specific action ('Create a new hiring context'), the resource type ('company profile'), and the purpose ('for organizing candidates and JDs'). It effectively positions this as the entry point to the Atlas ecosystem, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like atlas_upload_candidate or atlas_create_jd.

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?

Excellent guidance provided: explicitly states 'This is the first step in the Atlas workflow' (when to use), and details exactly how the output integrates with siblings ('Use this id as context_id in atlas_upload_candidate, atlas_create_jd...'). This creates a clear dependency map for the agent.

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