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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context annotations cannot express: the admission sequence required before use (enroll then atlas.bind_actor) and the confinement to Atlas's own record types. It does not describe result shape or limits, but with no output schema that is a modest gap.

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 admission prerequisite is usefully front-loaded, but the middle clause "FIND is not READ PRIVATE CONTENT is not MODIFY is not DECIDE is not EXECUTE" is a run-on negation list that is hard to parse and spends significant space restating scope already covered by the following sentence. Tighter phrasing would let the real constraints land faster.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: admission prerequisite, scope boundary, and the sibling to use for out-of-scope content. What an agent still lacks is any hint of what a returned 'record' contains or how results are ranked/paged, though the absence of an output schema limits how much the description should be expected to carry.

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 in-schema ('What you want to find or ask, in plain words' and the credential token). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Locate an Atlas-MCP record') and narrows scope to "Atlas's own records only (its source, rules, rooms, filings and their versions)." It explicitly carves itself away from business-document search and points to atlas.get_matter, so an agent can distinguish it from at least one sibling without opening schemas. It does not distinguish itself from the very close librarian.* siblings (resolve, related, provenance, version_history).

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 an explicit prerequisite chain ("[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]") and a clear when-not boundary ("does not search business documents such as invoices or purchase orders") with the alternative named (atlas.get_matter). It lacks guidance on when to choose this over librarian.resolve/related/provenance, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling set.

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