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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds 'subscription-gated,' which is a behavioral constraint, but it doesn't explain what an 'overlay context' does or what the output represents. This is acceptable but minimal.

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 extremely short, which aligns with conciseness, but it's a fragment lacking a clear sentence structure and fails to convey useful information. It's not front-loaded with a verb or action, making it less effective.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description doesn't clarify the tool's core function. 'Overlay context' and 'market and instrument' are ambiguous, and there's no usage guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to select 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%, with both 'limit' (max rows) and 'instrument' (optional market instrument) described clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?

The description 'Subscription-gated market and instrument overlay context' is a noun phrase without a verb, so it doesn't state what the tool does. It largely restates the name (market context) and adds vague terms like 'overlay context' that don't differentiate it from sibling tools such as atlas7_quick_ticker_check or atlas7_signal_board.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'subscription-gated' implies access restrictions but doesn't help an agent decide between this and other context tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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