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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return keys {ok, ir, results, languages} and the entitlement/demo constraint (FREE_R2_DEMO), which is real behavioral context.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the action comes first, then the return shape, then the demo/SDK note. Dense with bracket jargon but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Return keys and entitlement are covered and no output schema exists, so a good deal is present. But with 0% schema coverage and an opaque required 'atom_name', the definition leaves a critical input unexplained for an agent to call it reliably.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters have empty schema descriptions, so the description must carry the burden. It never explains what 'atom_name' means or what form 'source_text' takes — the two most important facts for invoking the tool correctly.

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 action and scope: emit to all 7 supported targets in one call, and names the return shape. The verbs/resource are specific enough to distinguish it from the listed siblings, none of which are polyglot/emit tools, though 'Polyglot' and 'atom' remain jargon.

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?

'Canonical demo examples baked to R2; novel inputs via SDK' hints at a demo-vs-SDK split but never says when an agent should call this instead of an alternative, nor states preconditions. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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