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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent, but the description adds that all data is derived from live shipping data and therefore self-refreshing — a meaningful behavioral trait. It also discloses the response-shape change caused by passing `repository` (focused map with names-only for the rest). It does not discuss data latency window or volume limits beyond the schema's window_days.

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-loaded: the first sentence defines the payload before any usage advice. Two tight paragraphs, though the "never goes stale like a hand-maintained repo list in an agent rules file" clause is rhetorical padding that could be cut without loss.

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 an output schema present and annotations declaring read-only, the description only needs to cover scope, when to call it, and routing to siblings — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly at session start is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by framing `repository` as binding the session to the owning team and explaining the focused-vs-full output consequence, which is the real decision behind the parameter. `window_days` is left entirely to the schema, so it does not fully cover both parameters.

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 precisely (the team's org map) and enumerates what it contains: repositories shipped to, activity/contributor signals, deploy path, readiness flag, repo relationships, and confirmed conventions. It separates itself from siblings by naming get-repo-readiness, link-repositories, and assess-change-fit with their distinct purposes.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use scenario ("the right call at session start in a multi-repo org") and names the alternative behavior (pulling the whole atlas). It routes the agent away to link-repositories for corrections and assess-change-fit for size/review norms, and to get-repo-readiness for detail beyond the compact flag.

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