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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: specifies the return value format ('model object with id'), discloses cost ('Free'), and explains workflow integration. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Five sentences total, all essential: purpose, return value, downstream usage, prerequisites, and cost. Well-structured with purpose front-loaded and workflow dependencies logically sequenced. No wasted words.

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 compensates by specifying the key return value ('id'). It covers prerequisites, downstream integration, and cost. Minor gap: could mention uniqueness constraints or error behavior given idempotentHint=false, but adequate for invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description reinforces the source of client_context_id but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves (name, description).

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 specific action ('Create'), resource ('custom evaluation model'), and domain ('hiring context'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly listing five downstream tools where the returned ID is consumed, establishing its role as the workflow entry point.

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 names prerequisite tools ('Requires client_context_id from atlas_create_context or atlas_list_contexts'), lists five specific downstream tools for the returned model_id, and notes cost ('Free'). This clearly establishes when to use the tool versus its siblings.

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