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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the caller does not supply a disposition, does not become the Magistrate, and does not receive the Magistrate credential, plus the admission requirement. These negative guarantees help the agent predict the side effects, though what the tool actually returns or mutates is still unstated.

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?

Front-loads the admission prerequisite in brackets, then delivers the action and its boundaries in a compact two-sentence block. The triple negative ('does not supply... does not become... does not receive') is slightly repetitive but each clause carries distinct boundary information.

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?

Covers the auth prerequisite and behavioral boundaries for a 4-parameter write operation, and there is no output schema to explain. Still missing is what a successful referral yields (a credential, a reference id, a state change) and what error conditions look like, which an agent needs to chain this call correctly.

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 all four parameters (question, matter_id, actor_token, related_matter_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Present a question to the Clerk,' and clarifies the effect ('The Clerk constitutes a Magistrate'). The action is identifiable, but the domain jargon (Clerk, Magistrate) is only circularly defined and the sibling atlas.magistrate_execute is never contrasted, so the agent cannot fully distinguish the two from the text alone.

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 '[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' gives an explicit prerequisite, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., when to use referral vs atlas.magistrate_execute), and no conditions for exclusion are given, so routing remains implied.

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