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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful non-covered behavior: the output reads mechanically and needs rewriting, voice targets get a different shape, and the call is paid ($0.10 via x402/USDC or Bearer-key prepaid credits) with a route to atlas_buy_pack. Auth and billing context is exactly the kind of thing annotations can't convey.

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?

The functional content is two tight sentences, but the trailing payment paragraph is long, contains a raw URL, and occupies roughly half the text. It is justified information (nothing else discloses billing), yet it is bolted on after the behavioral content rather than structured.

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?

Given nine parameters, nested state objects, and no output schema, the description reasonably covers what is returned and the paid-call mechanics. It remains thin on the kit dependency, what a 'delivery line' actually is, and how element/eyeline modes change the result.

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% and the nested state object is thoroughly documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely gestures at parameters ('from the kit', 'target's character cap', voice targets) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific artifact and its provenance: a 'first-draft acting paragraph assembled from the kit and fitted to the target's character cap, already linted.' That distinguishes it from atlas_kit (assembles the kit) and atlas_lint (lints), even if it describes the output rather than leading with a verb.

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 implies usage — take the kit output, draft it, then 'rewrite it as prose' — and notes the voice-target variant ('A voice target gets the delivery line instead'). But it never says when to call this versus atlas_kit, atlas_journey, or atlas_show, nor any prerequisites for the state object.

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