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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a cost/performance hint (cards are usually cheaper than whole nodes) and clarifies the granularity of reads (complete vs section vs decision), which is context beyond the annotations. It does not cover error behavior, but the schema's expected_revision description handles revision_changed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and address patterns, followed by a single useful comparison. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the core input formats and provides a cost-oriented alternative. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing between atlas_read and atlas_decisions for decision records, but the tool can still be invoked correctly.

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%; both address and expected_revision are documented in the schema. The description repeats the address formats without adding new syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Read' and enumerates the exact resource types and address formats: bare node id, node-id#section-slug, and decision:<id>. It also contrasts with atlas_cards, making the tool's scope clear and distinguishable from at least one sibling.

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?

It names atlas_cards as a cheaper alternative, implying that when a full Node is not needed, atlas_cards should be chosen. However, it does not address when to use atlas_read versus the atlas_decisions sibling for reading decision records, so the routing guidance is somewhat incomplete.

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