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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: deterministic keyword matching with no AI, verbatim published answer text with graded sources and page URL, and an explicit no-guess fallback — all things the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and how it fails. The mechanism and scope are front-loaded before the return and fallback details.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (answer text, graded sources, page URL) and the negative case (links instead of a guess). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 is only one parameter and its schema description coverage is 100%, including a concrete example question, so baseline is 3. The description hints that phrasing matters via 'deterministic keyword matching' but adds no syntax, length or phrasing guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it matches a question to the closest fact-checked Atlas answer page. It also distinguishes itself from retrieval-style siblings by naming the deterministic keyword-matching mechanism and the scoped domain (middle managers and change), so an agent can tell it apart from search_studies or get_study.

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?

Clearly framed as a lookup for a question that likely already has a published fact-checked answer, and it names the fallback path (Ask the Atlas and the Atlas links) when nothing fits. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with search_studies/get_study, so the sibling choice is left partly to inference.

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