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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: a concrete cost (10 credits per candidate), asynchronous background execution, and expected duration scaling with batch size. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot convey. It stops short of covering failure behavior — e.g. whether credits are consumed for candidates that fail or what a retry does given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and cost, then prerequisites, then the return/next-step chain, then runtime expectations. No filler and nothing repeated from 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 an async job-launching tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key contract: it returns a job_id, runs in the background, and how long it typically takes. The main residual gap is the unlabeled analysis_type modes and partial-failure semantics, which matter given a per-candidate credit charge.

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%, so the schema documents the two required parameters' provenance, and the description adds the meaningful constraint that candidate CVs must already be parsed. However, the analysis_type enum (gem_full, gem_lite, career_path) is never explained in the description and the schema only gives a default, leaving the agent to guess at the differences between modes.

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 ("Start") and resource ("GEM analyses of several candidates") with batch scope made explicit by "several candidates", which distinguishes it from the singular atlas_start_gem_analysis sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a hard prerequisite ("Their CVs must be parsed") and an explicit follow-up sequence routing to atlas_get_batch_gem_status then atlas_get_batch_gem_results. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the single-candidate start tool, but the batch framing makes the choice reasonably clear.

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