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

Adds a lot beyond the annotations: the exact acceptance rules (HTML must carry the data plus a visible link, not in a comment/iframe/noscript), daily re-check cadence, that state surfaces via atlas_dataset_get, that nothing on the page itself is changed, and the auth requirement (guest call returns 401 and starts OAuth). These are exactly the facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries weight (acceptance rules, cadence, state location, auth). The construction 'Tell the Atlas ... , and check it now:' is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth, semantics, cadence, and where state lives. What is missing is only the explicit datasetId/url parameter mapping.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, datasetId has no schema description, but the narrative implies it is the published dataset while url is the deployed page. That mapping is inferable but not stated explicitly, so the description only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it registers which public page shows a published dataset and immediately verifies it. It also partly distinguishes the reading path by pointing to atlas_dataset_get for state. The dual nature (register + check) is clear, though the title 'Check where a dataset is shown' underplays the write side.

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?

Usage is implied ('Tell the Atlas which public page shows a published dataset, and check it now') and it routes state-reading to atlas_dataset_get, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or stated alternative for registering vs. verifying. Adequate but leaves selection inference to the agent.

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