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

Adds behavior the annotations don't carry: refusals are recorded, and wrong handoff codes trigger a named rate-limit state (HANDOFF_GUESS_LOCKED). readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a call that consumes/records rather than merely reads, so nothing is contradicted. What's missing is what success actually does to state or returns.

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?

Three tight sentences with the mode/scope front-loaded, then the purpose constraint, then the failure mode. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; the domain jargon makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the refusal and rate-limit behavior but leaves the handoff workflow, the meaning of a non-'latest' ref, and the successful outcome unexplained. Adequate, not complete.

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 67%, and the description compensates by giving ref its accepted value ('latest'), tying handoff_code to the handoff flow, and constraining purpose to the memo's purpose limit beyond the schema's 'why you want this.' matter_id and actor_token are still carried only by the schema.

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+resource: consuming a memo handed off under a handoff_code for a stated purpose, scoped to 'Practice mode, Consumer Pulse copy only.' It does not name any sibling (pulse_memo, pulse_data, atlas.use) to distinguish itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 real usage constraints — internal purposes are allowed, purposes beyond the memo's limit (e.g. external publish) are refused — but never says when to call this versus atlas.pulse_memo, atlas.pulse_data, or atlas.use. The when-to-use is implied by 'handoff_code' rather than stated.

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