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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not apply the latest ATLAS snapshot retroactively across history. This is substantive behavioral context that helps an agent anticipate side effects and temporal semantics.

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 organized into purpose, return shape, parameters, behavior, and use cases in a compact paragraph. Each sentence adds distinct value and front-loads the most important information.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return row content, parameter semantics, behavior, and use cases. 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 input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, including defaults/caps, date formats, and inclusive bounds. The tool description only summarizes these parameters and adds no additional semantic detail, 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 identifies a specific verb ('retrieve'), a resource ('historical ATLAS-7 covenant and stress series'), and a scope ('one crypto public company ticker'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by emphasizing dated ATLAS source-date rows and mNAV/Mirror Pulse joins.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: historical ATLAS data, MSTR/Strategy time series, mNAV backtests, Mirror Pulse joins, and dated stress/risk snapshots. It does not name sibling alternatives or when-not conditions, so the guidance is clear but not comparative.

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