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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the admission prerequisite (enroll → atlas.bind_actor), which annotations do not carry and which is genuinely behavioral. It still says nothing about output shape, scoping to a matter, or what happens with an unadmitted token.

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?

It is short, but it is a sentence fragment with a bracketed prerequisite prepended and no verb, so it reads as a note rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. Every clause is dense with jargon, which reduces rather than improves parseability.

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 read-only, two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential prerequisite is disclosed. What is missing is the return shape and scoping (does matter_id narrow the list?), which the description would need to supply since no output schema exists.

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% and both parameters (actor_token, matter_id) are fully documented in the schema, including the optional-when-single-matter rule. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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 description is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and 'Granted capabilities and acts this actor cannot perform' is syntactically ambiguous — it is unclear whether the tool returns one list or two, or what an 'act this actor cannot perform' means. It does identify the resource domain (capabilities for the current actor), so it is more than a restatement of the name, but not specific enough to distinguish it cleanly from siblings like atlas.request_capability or atlas.get_authority.

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?

'[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' gives a concrete prerequisite chain the agent must satisfy first, which is useful usage context. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over atlas.get_authority or atlas.get_assignment, and no exclusion conditions are stated.

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