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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so description focuses on adding domain-specific context: enumerates status values (pending/generating/completed/failed), lists return fields (title, type, summary), and notes cost ('Free'). Does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, preventing a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste: purpose, return values, conditional next-step, parameter source, and cost. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every sentence provides distinct value not redundant with structured fields.

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?

For a simple single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the state machine, return fields, workflow integration with three sibling tools, and cost. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description mentions report_id sources but adds minimal semantic detail about the parameter itself (type, format) beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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 report status and metadata' with clear scope. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling atlas_download_report by specifying this tool only retrieves status/metadata while the sibling handles PDF downloads.

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 workflow guidance: 'When status='completed', download the PDF with atlas_download_report(report_id)'. Also specifies valid sources for the report_id parameter (from atlas_start_report or atlas_list_reports), establishing clear prerequisites.

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