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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations cannot: the call is free (no credit cost) and the response includes the declaration's exact text and version — the latter is real behavioral detail an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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?

One sentence plus a two-word cost note: front-loaded with the core question and free of padding. The nested parenthetical about email/Spotter counts is slightly hard to parse and could be a separate clause.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does: acceptance state plus exact text and version. What is missing is the edge case — what a negative or not-yet-accepted result looks like — but the essential call contract is present.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The parenthetical about 'one made by email with Spotter counts' characterizes the declaration itself rather than any argument, which adds modest context only.

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?

Names a specific resource — whether the user has accepted the PDPA candidate-search declaration — and adds distinguishing detail (exact text and version returned). The phrasing 'the PDPA declaration candidate search requires' is tangled, but an agent can still tell this is the status/read half of the pair whose write half is atlas_accept_candidate_search_declaration.

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?

The yes/no framing implies a pre-check before accepting or searching, but no when-to-use rule or explicit pointer to atlas_accept_candidate_search_declaration is given. Usage is inferable from the sibling name and the 'Whether...' construction, not stated.

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