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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered by structured data. The description adds two genuinely useful bits beyond that: the admission/auth requirement and the constraint that it only records pre-existing relations and "does not invent links." It stops short of describing what is recorded or returned.

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 chain "FIND is not READ PRIVATE CONTENT is not MODIFY is not DECIDE is not EXECUTE" is cryptic filler that consumes space without conveying a clear instruction. The core action sentence is buried after the bracket and competes with the noise.

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, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite and the key behavioral constraint. It is close to adequate, though it never explains what "recording" a relation actually produces or how it differs from librarian.provenance/version_history.

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 fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

"Records the docket already relates to an identifier" states an action plus resource, and "Does not invent links" narrows the scope versus inventing relationships. However the phrasing is convoluted and the trailing slogan ("FIND is not READ PRIVATE CONTENT is not MODIFY...") muddies rather than clarifies what the tool actually does. An agent can infer it records an existing relation but must work for it.

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 bracket prefix states a concrete prerequisite (enroll, then atlas.bind_actor), which is real usage guidance, and "Does not invent links" implies when this is appropriate. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative among siblings like librarian.resolve or librarian.find, so the guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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