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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: a Record API token in the Authorization header, the /mcp/public path, and the cost model of one Record API request per check. It stops short of describing failure or auth-error behavior, but the added operational context is substantive.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and operational constraints follow. The header/path detail is somewhat implementation-flavored but still earns its place by telling the agent what auth to supply.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and auth plus request cost are covered. The critical gap is parameter documentation for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, particularly the unexplained 'since' filter. Adequate for invocation safety, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It implies 'tool' means one MCP tool identifier, but 'endpoint' and especially 'since' (presumably a temporal filter) are never explained in either place. With no compensating meaning added, an agent must guess at required formats.

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: reads stored facts and effect classes for one MCP tool, with a signature. The qualifiers 'never a verdict' and 'No live inspection' sharpen what kind of read this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_atlas_entry, get_passport, or search_atlas, so it falls 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?

Useful scoping signals appear indirectly: 'No live inspection' and 'never a verdict' tell the agent this returns cached record data rather than running anything. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative despite get_atlas_entry and search_atlas existing.

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