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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description carries real weight: it discloses the required auth path (enroll → bind_actor, token from enroll/authenticate), sequencing rules, and two explicit constraints ('Workers cannot seal', 'Do not send a ruling'). It does not describe the return artifact or idempotency, but it meaningfully exceeds the single annotation.

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?

Roughly three short sentences that each carry content: prerequisite, action, and constraints. The bracketed admission requirement is front-loaded, and there is no filler, though the compressed jargon trades clarity for brevity.

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 multi-actor, mutating workflow step with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, preconditions, and prohibitions reasonably well but never says what a successful call produces (the 'return'), how it relates to atlas.magistrate_referral, or whether retrying is safe. An agent can sequence the call but not fully predict the outcome.

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 the field-level descriptions already explain that actor_token comes from atlas.enroll/authenticate and matter_id is optional when bound to exactly one matter. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names the resource (the magistrate) and a specific action pair — 'constitute the warm magistrate or receive its authenticated return' — and explicitly distinguishes itself from sending a ruling (contrast with atlas.magistrate_referral). However, the domain jargon ('warm magistrate', 'authenticated return', 'seal') leaves an agent without a plain-language statement of what the tool actually accomplishes.

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 states a hard prerequisite chain ('[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]') and a state precondition ('Argument and counterargument must already be filed by other actors before the return is received'), plus a prohibition ('Do not send a ruling'). What it does not do is say when to prefer this over the sibling atlas.magistrate_referral, so the usage routing is implied rather than explicit.

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