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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: CV parsing is asynchronous (key timing info), returns a candidate object with 'id' (compensating for missing output schema), and notes the tool is 'Free' (cost transparency). Does not contradict 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?

Six efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by async behavior, return value usage, workflow prerequisites, dependency resolution, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with specific actionable information.

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 the multi-step workflow complexity (upload → async parse → status check → downstream usage), no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return value structure, the async lifecycle, and integration points with sibling tools, though it could briefly note error handling or the optional parameters' purposes.

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 57% (moderate). The description adds semantic context for context_id (where to obtain it) and file (CV PDF/DOCX content), but does not compensate for the three undocumented parameters in the schema (notes, candidate_name, candidate_email). Baseline appropriate for partial coverage.

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 verb (Upload), resource (candidate CV), format constraints (PDF/DOCX), and target (hiring context). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ceevee_upload_cv by specifying the 'hiring context' scope and atlas_ prefix workflow.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly names four specific sibling tools (atlas_start_gem_analysis, atlas_fit_match, atlas_generate_interview, batch tools) to use the returned candidate_id with, specifies atlas_get_candidate as the prerequisite check for parsing completion, and identifies context_id sources (atlas_create_context or atlas_list_contexts).

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