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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive); the description adds far more: results are computed without a model from verified vendor pricing pages, 'unknown is never shown as missing or free', nothing is saved, and there is a rate limit of sixty per day per address. That is substantial disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs a lot into a compact block, with no filler sentences. It is dense rather than wasteful, though the return-value detail is slightly long given an output schema exists.

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 read-only comparison tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description covers the remaining unknowns an agent needs: determinism, rate limit, non-persistence, and how unresolved plans are represented. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry more weight; it maps 'seats, minutes a month, required capabilities' to the scenario fields and implies the 2-5 tool count, but says nothing about billing, currency, or longestRecording. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves documented-by-neither parameters.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Preview a price comparison of 2-5 Atlas tools for a usage scenario') and narrows scope to the first category, AI transcription. It is instantly distinguishable from the dataset/publish siblings it lives among.

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 frames itself as a non-persistent preview and routes persistence to atlas_dataset_create, and the schema adds 'resolve names with atlas_search first'. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the persistence split.

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