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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description goes beyond by specifying that it does not fetch live market data, run ATLAS calculations, place trades, or mutate recorder state. It also discloses that it does not promote legacy compatibility scores or venue context into canonical truth, adding meaningful behavioral detail 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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose and then efficiently covers the four levels, parameters, and behavior. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes meaningful information. No fluff, though the parameter list could have been omitted given schema coverage.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, scope, the four-layer reporting, parameters, and safety/behavioral exclusions. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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% for all six parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description merely lists parameter names and adds the mode=compact|full shorthand, which is also present in the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'determine which ATLAS-7 four-level layers are evidence-backed for one issuer or a paginated issuer universe.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the four layers and explicitly excluding legacy compatibility scores and venue context, which aligns with its unique purpose.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use it to determine evidence-backed ATLAS-7 layers for an issuer or paginated set. It also states what it does not do (no live data, no calculations, no trades, no state mutation), providing useful exclusions. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly indicate when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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