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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: return format ('array of context objects'), specific field details ('id'), and cost ('Free'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose, return structure, and usage guidance with cost. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. No redundant or filler text.

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 explains return values (array of objects with id fields) and the tool's integration point in the broader workflow. It could be improved by briefly explaining what constitutes a 'hiring context', but covers the essential integration pattern well.

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 0% schema description coverage for the 'include_inactive' boolean parameter, the description fails to compensate. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving agents to infer its purpose solely from the parameter name, despite the low schema coverage requiring descriptive compensation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all hiring contexts') and scope ('for the authenticated user'), distinguishing it from sibling atlas_create_context. It effectively identifies this as a retrieval operation for hiring context data.

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 identifies when to use the tool by listing specific sibling tools (atlas_upload_candidate, atlas_create_jd, etc.) that require the returned context_id. This establishes clear workflow dependency: call this first, then use the id elsewhere.

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