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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call reads the published dataset once, performs no dataset writes and no issuer contact, stamps the dataset version into every report, and reports absent fields as 'not in the published dataset'. It also carries auth/economic behavior: 0.10 USDC per call via x402 on Base, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, wallet-proof binding to exact JSON args and route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: what the brief contains comes first, followed by error behavior, transport, pricing, and provenance links. The trailing URL/contract references are low-value for tool selection, but every other sentence carries operational 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 paid, single-parameter, open-world read with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: input format, output contents, error shape, cost and free-tier limits, proof binding, and return provenance. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 single parameter already documents the exact-spelling example and case-insensitive, spacing-normalized matching. The description restates the example and adds the not_found fallback, but contributes no new matching or formatting semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submit an issuer name and receive a signed brief listing that issuer's assets with taxonomy stages and six rights fields, with disclosed vs. not-disclosed counts. It is clearly a per-issuer report, but it never names or contrasts the closest siblings (atlas-asset-search, atlas-rights-gap, atlas-compare), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage context is concrete: supply the issuer name exactly as the dataset spells it (with a worked example), and unknown names return issuer_not_found plus candidate names. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or point to an alternative tool for asset-level or rights-gap queries.

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