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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about result ordering, pagination flow, or what a match looks like — so it earns only baseline credit.

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?

A single short sentence front-loads the action and the browse behavior; the inline JSON example is compact and demonstrates the query shape. The sample value "rupturebrief" is not explained but does no harm; overall there is little waste.

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, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and every parameter documented, the description only needs to fix the tool's purpose, which it does. Minor gaps such as what the atlas indexes or how results rank are acceptable given the surrounding structure.

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%, with limit, query, and cursor each documented inline (including default 20, max 50, and nextCursor reuse). The description only restates query semantics ("omit query to browse"), which the schema already says, so it adds no meaning beyond 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 and resource ("Search the public service atlas") and notes that omitting the query browses all entries, which distinguishes the search path from retrieving one item via get_atlas_entry. It stops short of naming siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The clause "omit query to browse" tells the agent how to switch from searching to listing, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_atlas_entry for a known item, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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