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 adds genuinely new context: the admission/enrollment prerequisite and the deliberate non-disambiguation behavior ('ambiguous matches stay ambiguous'), which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 is usefully front-loaded, but the 'FIND is not READ PRIVATE CONTENT is not MODIFY is not DECIDE is not EXECUTE' chain is opaque jargon that consumes space without clearly helping an agent decide anything. The purpose sentence earns its place; the taxonomy is questionable.

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 full schema coverage, prerequisites, idempotency, and ambiguity behavior are all present. Only the shape of the resolved record is unstated, which is minor given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 (identifier, actor_token) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about the identifier beyond what the schema says, 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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (an institutional identifier to the Atlas-MCP record that carries it), which clearly separates it from atlas.librarian.find and the other librarian siblings. The trailing 'FIND is not READ...' taxonomy is cryptic, but the core purpose is stated unambiguously.

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 prefix states an explicit prerequisite chain ('NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor'), and 'Ambiguous matches stay ambiguous' sets expectations versus a disambiguating search. There is no explicit when-not rule beyond the jargon taxonomy, so it falls short of a 5.

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