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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations don't: an API key is required for Attic Beyond, unknown slugs return 404, and the corpus is limited (~38 briefs). It does not describe response shape, but that is secondary here.

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 purpose and payload, then appends terse operational facts in short sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the string of clipped fragments reads slightly staccato rather than polished.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (thesis, risk flags, related episodes, outbound links), plus auth, error behavior, and corpus scope. An agent has everything needed to call it 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% – both market and slug are documented in the schema, including the accepted market names and slug provenance. The description adds only the caution "Do not invent a dossier," which is guidance rather than 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get an Attic object dossier") and enumerates the payload (thesis, risk flags, related Creators episodes, outbound links), which separates it from generic reads like attic_get_article or attic_get_episode. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 context: where slugs come from ("Slugs appear on articles and episodes"), the auth requirement for Attic Beyond, and the failure mode ("Unknown slugs 404"). It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., attic_search to discover slugs), so no explicit when-not guidance.

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