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

The description asserts 'Read only' while the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, a direct conflict over the tool's side-effect profile. Useful context (practice-mode-only, no real runtime Bailiff exists) is present, but the safety-relevant claim contradicts the structured metadata, which is the exact failure mode this dimension is meant to catch.

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 short sentences with no filler; the scoping caveat and the demo disclaimer are both kept tight. The one blemish is that the leading clause is environment scoping rather than the tool's core action, pushing the actual purpose into the middle of sentence one.

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 no output schema, the description does list the fields the order surfaces (reason, deadline, standing, accessible records), which is helpful. It does not say what happens when no order exists, what error conditions occur, or what the returned object looks like, and the conflicting read-only claim leaves the mutation profile unresolved.

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 100%, so actor_token and matter_id are already fully documented in the schema, including where the credential comes from and when matter_id is optional. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, 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 concrete verb ('show') and a concrete resource ('the Atlas return order') and enumerates what is displayed: reason, deadline, status, accessible records. The 'Bailiff demo, step 1' tag locates it inside the bailiff_* family, though it does not explicitly contrast with bailiff_record, bailiff_respond, or bailiff_verify.

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?

'Practice mode, Consumer Pulse copy only' constrains where the tool applies, and 'step 1' implies ordering relative to the other bailiff tools. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over atlas.bailiff_record or atlas.get_matter, and no named alternative.

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