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

Annotations already confirm read-only/idempotent/safe behavior, so description appropriately focuses on adding output semantics ('scores and competency breakdowns') and workflow constraints. Notes 'Free' (cost behavior) not covered in annotations. Could improve by describing error behavior if called before completion, but covers happy-path prerequisites well.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return format, prerequisite check, input source, and cost. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundant phrases or boilerplate. Exceptionally efficient.

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?

Strong coverage for a batch workflow tool: explains return structure (compensating for missing output schema), defines prerequisite state (completed), and identifies parameter source. Sibling differentiation is clear. Minor gap: doesn't describe failure modes (e.g., what happens if status isn't completed).

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents job_id as 'Batch job ID from atlas_start_batch_gem response'. Description echoes this ('job_id from atlas_start_batch_gem response') without adding new validation rules, format details, or semantic constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema carries full load.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') and resource ('results from a completed batch GEM job'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling status-checking tool (atlas_get_batch_gem_status) and starting tool (atlas_start_batch_gem) by specifying this retrieves final results. Mentions return structure ('array of per-candidate analysis results') adding specific domain context.

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 prerequisite workflow: 'Check atlas_get_batch_gem_status(job_id) first to confirm status=completed'. Names the exact sibling tool to use beforehand. Also clarifies input provenance ('job_id from atlas_start_batch_gem response'), establishing the full tool chain sequence.

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