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

With annotations covering readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description still adds useful context: the admission prerequisite and the specific behavior that it does not mark one current unless the docket says it superseded another. The final negative chain is confusing but consistent with the annotations.

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 description is short but poorly structured: a prerequisite is front-loaded ahead of purpose, and the final chain 'FIND is not READ PRIVATE CONTENT is not MODIFY...' is cryptic and largely repeats annotation coverage. Several words do not earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what version history returns or how versions are represented. It instead leaves the core behavior opaque and omits return format, ordering, or pagination details.

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. The description mentions 'carry an identifier' and admission, but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 never states a clear verb and resource for what the tool returns. 'Incorporated records that carry an identifier' is vague and does not explain that this retrieves version history, nor does it differentiate from siblings like atlas.librarian.find or atlas.librarian.provenance.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The line about FIND/READ/MODIFY/DECIDE/EXECUTE is cryptic and does not provide usable selection criteria.

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