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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are in manifest order, query matches substring against canonical id/title/body, only 'admitted' summaries are returned, and expected_revision interacts with 'revision_changed' to refuse a moved Release. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core capability and output scope; the second provides the critical cross-reference to atlas_read. Every phrase earns its place.

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 both parameters optional, an output schema present, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and description specifying result contents and the path to full records, nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 100%, with query and expected_revision already thoroughly described. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific action ('List or search') targeting a specific resource ('admitted Decision summaries') and specifies the output fields ('id, title, Hook') and ordering ('manifest order'). It clearly differentiates itself from atlas_read by pointing to that sibling for complete records.

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?

Explicitly names atlas_read as the alternative when the complete record is needed, giving the agent a clear decision rule between this tool and its sibling. The contrast between 'summaries' and 'complete record' makes the intended use unambiguous.

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