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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. Description adds valuable cost information ('Free') and workflow context about checking parse status before proceeding to analysis steps.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose, usage guideline, and prerequisites/cost. Every sentence conveys unique information with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description provides complete context including workflow prerequisites, cost, and return content without needing to detail the output structure.

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. Description mentions 'Free' (not in schema) but the provenance information for context_id is slightly misleading (implies it comes from atlas_upload_candidate/list_candidates like candidate_id, rather than atlas_create_context/list_contexts as per schema).

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?

States specific action ('Get full candidate detail'), identifies the resource (candidate), and specifies what is returned (parsed CV content and parse status). Distinguishes from siblings like atlas_upload_candidate by focusing on retrieval rather than creation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('verify CV parsing is complete... before starting analysis') and identifies prerequisite steps requiring IDs from specific sibling tools (atlas_upload_candidate or atlas_list_candidates).

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