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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds context beyond them: 'it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, does not write external systems, and does not handle secrets or payments itself.' This confirms safety and side-effect profile in plain language without contradicting 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 longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence conveys useful operational guidance: what it checks, what it returns, no-parameter invocation, behavior, and usage timing. Some redundancy exists with the annotations, such as restating read-only and idempotent behavior, but the added security and side-effect details justify the length.

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 zero-parameter readiness gate with an output schema present, the description covers invocation, timing, behavioral guarantees, and routing to alternatives. It even lists the returned diagnostic categories, which is more than needed given the output schema. Nothing necessary for correct use is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'Parameters: none; call it exactly as-is', which reinforces that no arguments are needed and removes any ambiguity. There is no parameter-level meaning to add beyond the empty schema.

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: 'verify that the DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 data plane is live, fresh, and safe to query.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that daily_changes handles what changed and issuer tools handle company-specific analysis. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many similarly named tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'before analysis', 'at the start of an agent workflow', 'after a deploy', or 'whenever results should be gated on freshness.' It also names alternatives for other intents, saying to use daily_changes for what changed and issuer tools for company-specific analysis. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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