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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful auth prerequisite (must be admitted via enroll + bind_actor), which is useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about the response or rate/scope limits.

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?

It is a single short line, which is efficient, but the front-loaded bracket note is followed by an ambiguous sentence whose second half ("followed by the primary actor result") does not clearly earn its place or convey meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does not. Combined with a vague purpose statement, the definition is too thin for an agent to call this correctly beyond the schema's parameter docs.

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 100%, so both actor_token and matter_id are fully documented in the schema, including the "optional when bound to exactly one matter" nuance. The description's mention of "bound matter" only loosely echoes matter_id and adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Minimum assignment for a bound matter" largely restates the name/title (get_assignment) and never defines what an "assignment" actually is. The trailing clause "followed by the primary actor result" is cryptic and does not clarify the verb or resource. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from siblings like atlas.get_context or atlas.get_matter.

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?

The bracketed note "[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]" names the prerequisite workflow and the sibling tools to run first, which is genuine routing guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use against alternatives, nor what distinguishes this from other read tools.

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