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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that it reads the published dataset once per call, performs no dataset writes, contacts no issuer, stamps every report with the dataset version read, and reports absent fields as 'not in the published dataset'. It also covers pricing (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding, and the Ed25519 signed receipt — consistent with idempotentHint=false given the per-call payment and version-bound reads.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a return-value sentence, then endpoint/behavior, then payment and auth mechanics, then contract references. It is dense but every sentence carries operational or behavioral information; no filler.

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, signed, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents (NAV, unit, reading time, publisher, URL, catalog NAV, age at market timestamp), missing-data handling, versioning, cost, and auth binding. Remaining gaps are minor: unknown-asset error behavior and the report's serialization format are not stated.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (pattern, length bounds, case-insensitive matching, PAXG example), the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only the restatement 'asset id or ticker', adding marginal meaning 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('submit an asset id or ticker' producing a signed NAV evidence report) and enumerates what the report contains, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many adjacent Atlas siblings (atlas-asset-passport, atlas-asset-search, atlas-compare, atlas-redemption-check), which an agent must infer from name alone.

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 implied (fetch authoritative NAV evidence for an asset with a signed receipt) but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use atlas-asset-passport when Y' routing guidance despite a dense family of similar tools. The operational prerequisites it does give — paid call, wallet-proof header, contract page — are about how to call, not when to choose this over alternatives.

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