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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a meaningful behavioral fact the annotations do not carry: this call requires prior admission via atlas.enroll then atlas.bind_actor. It omits what the returned authority looks like, but the auth prerequisite is the valuable disclosure.

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?

Two short fragments, with the gating prerequisite front-loaded before the purpose clause – nothing is padded. The bracketed tag is slightly cryptic scheme shorthand, which keeps it from a 5.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage the definition is workable, and the admission prerequisite is covered. With no output schema, however, the agent gets no hint of what 'authority' is returned as (scopes? capabilities? a token?), which leaves a real gap.

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%, and the schema already explains both actor_token and the matter_id conditional ('optional when bound to exactly one matter'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: retrieving the authority actually granted to the calling actor, which is clearer than a tautological restatement of 'get authority'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like atlas.list_capabilities or atlas.get_assignment, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prerequisite (enroll, then atlas.bind_actor) tells the agent exactly what must happen before this call, which is real usage guidance. It stops at 4 because no alternative tool is named for the case where the agent wants a different view of permissions.

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