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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the admission and matter.read capability gate, the conditional inclusion of evidence_records, the full set of returned fields, and an epistemic caveat that a claim is not a judgment or established fact. That is substantial behavior disclosure the structured fields do not provide.

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?

The prerequisite and core purpose are front-loaded in the first clause, and each trailing sentence carries meaning about response contents or epistemic status. Slightly dense but nothing is redundant filler.

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 shoulders the return-value burden and does so for the admitted case by listing evidence_records fields. It does not describe the base response when the actor lacks matter.read, leaving a minor 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including matter_id's optionality when bound to a single matter. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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+resource ('Get matter', 'Matter state from the docket') and enumerates what the response contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like atlas.get_assignment, atlas.get_authority, or atlas.get_resulting_state, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 '[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' gives an explicit prerequisite chain, and the 'hold matter.read' condition clarifies access. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over sibling state-read tools such as get_resulting_state, so no exclusion guidance.

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