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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description consistently describes an audit/read operation. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the atomic-batch guarantee and the audit-specific scoping. There is no contradiction with 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 dense sentences front-load the core action and outputs, then add atomicity and usage scope. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 the small parameter set, read-only/idempotent annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: inputs, output topics, atomicity, and purpose. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit sibling alternative or failure behavior note, but the current definition is sufficient for a competent call.

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%, and the schema already explains the address format ('node-id#section-slug') and the expected_revision/coherence semantics. The description only refers broadly to 'cited span addresses' and adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 transformation: expand cited span addresses into audit facts, and explicitly names the resulting outputs (dependency digest, attestations, Release identity). The 'only for auditing how a claim is sourced' clause clearly distinguishes this from general read tools like atlas_read or atlas_navigate.

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?

Provides a clear invocation context ('only for auditing how a claim is sourced') and an implied exclusion: it is not for general reading or navigation. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so routing guidance is not fully explicit.

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