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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context: it reads an artifact from Azure Blob, reports specific metrics, and 'does not run the audit, mutate data, or access raw issuer evidence.' 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then details behavior and usage in three compact sentences. Every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy or fluff, balancing detail with brevity.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It enumerates the exact fields reported (last successful run time, issuer count, failure counts, etc.), so an agent can confidently use the tool without further clarification.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is irrelevant. The description explicitly states 'Parameters: none,' which reassures the agent that no input is required. This is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, though it adds no extra semantics 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'check whether the Azure-native ATLAS-7 full-universe regression audit is healthy.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope (read-only audit status) and distinguishes it from sibling ATLAS-7 tools by focusing on audit health rather than candidate generation, search, or stress analysis.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this before trusting historical ATLAS-7 surfaces in an agent workflow or when an operator asks whether the nightly 215-issuer audit is current.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool and what it does not do, making alternatives implicitly clear.

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