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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds what the agent will actually find (endpoint readiness, token requirements, health-check queue instructions) and a chaining contract stating every response returns site_ref. It does not say whether the list is filtered by default or how results are ordered/paged.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its scope before the use case and the chaining contract. Slightly padded by product framing ("Atlasly", "site intelligence") and a long chaining sentence, but every element carries usable signal.

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 eight optional params, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description does enough: purpose, usage trigger, expected content, and site_ref chaining. The remaining gap is filter/interaction semantics (e.g., how country + category narrow results) and any relationship to get_lpa_adapter_status.

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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents country, category, source_key, adapter_key, dataset_key(s), and the site_ref chaining object. The description adds nothing about how these filters combine or what omitting all of them returns, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List Atlasly registered official-source adapters") plus the geographic scope (USA/EU/global). An agent can tell this is a registry-listing tool, but the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like get_lpa_adapter_status, inspect_research_source, or get_location_coverage, which also surface source/jurisdiction status.

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 concrete use trigger: "Use to inspect source endpoint readiness, token requirements, and health-check queue instructions before relying on unsupported-location research." That tells the agent when this call is warranted. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming the sibling to use instead for LPA-specific or per-source inspection.

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