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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: it enumerates the signal dimensions returned (direction with four named values, evidenced vs deduced, decision type, dated verbatim quote), which is valuable because no output schema exists. It stops short of stating behavior for unknown slugs or result size.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words, and the returned-field enumeration is front-loaded. The list-of-dimensions phrasing is slightly compressed but earns its place given the absent output schema.

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 correctly spends its budget describing the return shape across signal dimensions, which is the main risk for this tool. The remaining gap is the identifier parameter and behavior on a miss, both minor for a one-parameter read.

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?

There is one required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden, yet it never names the slug or its format. 'Named in the atlas' only loosely hints that identification is by atlas name/slug, which is not enough to convey the lowercase-hyphenated pattern or length limit.

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 identifies a specific resource ('An organisation named in the atlas') and its full scope ('every documented exposure it has, across signals'), so an agent knows this returns one org plus all its signal-linked exposures. Differentiation from siblings like get_dossier and get_signal is left implicit, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over get_dossier, get_signal, or list_signals, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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