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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context: it is an orientation/snapshot operation that should continue the existing workflow, never create a parallel backlog, and edits are routed through other tools (lookup then capture), implying orient itself is purely informational. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences front-load the core modes before giving workflow routing, and each sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('claim depth', 'parallel backlog'), but not bloated or redundant.

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 read-only, parameter-rich tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough operational context, including mode-specific behaviors and how to continue with sibling tools. The absence of any mention of return format is a minor gap since no output schema exists, but the mode semantics and schema largely compensate.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, including enum meanings and limit clamp behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description's mode list and 'depth=work for the full corpus' hint lightly supplement the schema but mostly restate it, so no higher score is earned.

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 distinct action, 'Workspace orientation,' and enumerates four modes with parenthetical meanings (snapshot overview, whats_new delta, strategy, integrations), so an agent can identify the resource and primary intent. It does not sharply contrast against siblings like atisbo_map or atisbo_lookup, but the sibling-routing sentences imply orient is the top-level orientation entry point.

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 mentions continuing the user's existing workflow and never creating a parallel backlog, and it directs follow-on actions to atisbo_lookup, atisbo_analyze, and atisbo_capture. However, it does not explicitly state when orient should be preferred over siblings or list exclusions, so the guidance is more workflow context than crisp when-to-use/alternatives guidance.

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