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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds critical context that the external data is 'industry KB data' and that invocations cost 8 credits. It also discloses return structure (fit score 0-100, strengths, gaps, recommendations) which annotations cannot 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?

Information-dense with zero wasted words. Front-loads the key differentiator (KB augmentation), followed by cost, behavioral traits (synchronous), and return values. Slightly dense structure but every clause earns its place.

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?

Excellent completeness given no output schema exists: it manually documents the return structure (fit score, strengths, gaps, recommendations, market context), explains the cost model, and differentiates from the sibling tool. No gaps remain for a 3-parameter 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, primarily noting that parameters come from 'same sources as atlas_start_fit_match'—useful for cross-tool navigation but not deep parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Enhanced FIT match with knowledge base augmentation') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tool atlas_start_fit_match by contrasting 'augments with industry KB data for richer insights' against the basic version.

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 cost signal '(8 credits)' and synchronicity status to guide invocation decisions. References sibling tool atlas_start_fit_match to establish relationship, though it could more explicitly state when to prefer this over the basic version (e.g., 'Use when market context is required').

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