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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the cost signal ('Free') and the gating workflow constraint around parsing_status, both of which are useful beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about payload size or latency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and payload, followed by the workflow gate and ID provenance. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to place the tool in the workflow — which it does via the parsing_status gate and ID sourcing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema with their provenance, so the description's restatement of where context_id and candidate_id come from adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get full candidate detail') and enumerates what the payload contains (parsed CV content, parse status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like atlas_list_candidates, which only enumerate candidates.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('verify CV parsing is complete (parsing_status='completed') before starting analysis') and names the sibling tools that supply the required IDs (atlas_upload_candidate, atlas_list_candidates). It does not state when to prefer a different detail tool or any when-not condition, so it stops short of the top band.

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