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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses the ruling was written in advance by a separate Magistrate instance, did not read the AI's own wording, is not certified, and binds only the practice copy. These caveats are exactly the behavioral context an agent needs. It could still note reversibility or side effects on the copy, but this is strong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the behavioral caveats, then the verify mode. Dense with parentheticals but no sentence is wasted. Slightly heavy for an agent to parse but all content earns its 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?

With no output schema and 50% param coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: the ruling receipt id returned, the demo caveats, and the verify-text behavior with whole-text comparison. An agent can decide whether to call and how to interpret the result. Minor gaps remain around what a ruling contains and exact failure conditions.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate for receipt_id and verify_text, which it does: it explains passing verify_text to compare a copy of the ruling against the stored ruling and that the whole text is compared, with receipt_id optional. This adds real meaning over the bare schema. The undocumented semantics of receipt_id beyond that pairing is the only gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'get the Magistrate's ruling on your referral, recorded on your copy with a ruling receipt id.' It also distinguishes the practice/Consumer-Pulse scope and folds in a second verification mode (verify_text). The dual get/verify nature slightly blurs the single core purpose, but a specific action is clearly named.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies: 'Practice mode, Consumer Pulse copy only (Magistrate demo, steps 4 and 6).' It also signals the alternate verify flow and when to use it ('Pass verify_text ... to check a copy'). It does not explicitly route against a named alternative such as atlas.pulse_verify_receipt or atlas.pulse_refer, so it stops 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.