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

Annotations already mark read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it does not fetch live market data, run ATLAS calculations, place trades, or mutate recorder state. It also explains the conceptual guarding behavior ('without promoting legacy compatibility scores or venue context into canonical truth'). This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 well-structured: a purpose statement, a list of reported layers, a parameter summary, and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is slightly long and dense. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the primary use case.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description provides all necessary context: scope (single issuer or paginated universe), the four output levels, parameter options, pagination behavior, and explicit non-behaviors. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions and constraints, providing 100% coverage. The description's parameter list adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states the tool's purpose: determining which ATLAS-7 four-level layers are evidence-backed for one issuer or a paginated universe. It names the specific output levels (Level 1-4) and distinguishes itself from likely siblings by explicitly noting it does not promote legacy compatibility scores or venue context. This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement, with enough detail to differentiate from adjacent tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for evidence-backed ATLAS-7 layer assessment on a single issuer or paginated universe, in read-only mode. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and behavior are well-defined. This earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the absence of explicit exclusions or alternative-tool references.

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