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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is subscription-gated and governed, and it only returns evidence envelopes, never raw SQL. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the response format and access constraints.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Subscription-gated governed semantic query', and contains no fluff. Every word adds value, making it extremely concise while still conveying the core purpose and key constraints.

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?

With a rich input schema and annotations, the description provides the essential behavioral disclosures (subscription, evidence-only, no raw SQL). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic function, though it could be more complete with a brief example or a more explicit statement of what a semantic query is. Overall, it is well-rounded given the structured context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described as 'Optional validated...' or 'Maximum rows to return'. The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies it as a semantic query tool that returns ATLAS evidence envelopes and explicitly excludes raw SQL, which distinguishes it from query compilation or raw access tools. The action is implied via 'semantic query' and the resource is 'ATLAS evidence envelopes', but it doesn't explicitly state the verb 'query' or explain what a semantic query entails.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., atlas7_compile_query). It mentions 'Subscription-gated' but doesn't say when to choose this over alternative query approaches or what scenarios it is best suited for. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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