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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context missing from annotations: the return payload structure ('array with each analysis's id, type, status, and scores') and cost ('Free'). Deducted one point for not mentioning pagination behavior or result limits.

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?

Four sentences covering purpose, return format, sibling relationships, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds unique value; no repetition of schema or annotation content. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by describing return fields. Prerequisites are clearly stated. For a 3-parameter list tool, this is nearly complete; would benefit from mentioning pagination or maximum result limits.

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 67% (two parameters fully described, analysis_type lacks description). The description mentions 'optional type filtering' which provides semantic context for the analysis_type parameter, but does not explain the enum values (gem_full, gem_lite, etc.). With medium schema coverage, this meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('List') and clear resource ('analyses for a candidate'), immediately establishing scope. It distinguishes from sibling atlas_get_analysis by explaining this returns summary data (id, type, status, scores) while the sibling retrieves 'full details'.

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 prerequisites ('Requires context_id and candidate_id from atlas_list_candidates') and provides clear alternative guidance ('Use the analysis id with atlas_get_analysis to retrieve full details'). The 'optional type filtering' phrase clarifies when to use the analysis_type parameter.

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