AtlaSent — Issue Permit

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds no behavioral context beyond 'issue a permit token' – no mention of permissions, side effects, or limits. With annotations present, description carries minimal extra value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 6 parameters (4 required), nested objects, no output schema, and sibling tools like verify/revoke permit, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the high-level purpose but lacks workflow context or return value expectations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. Description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies. No additional semantic value from description.

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?

Description clearly states 'issue a permit token for an action' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from evaluate siblings by mentioning 'pre-authorized operations where a full evaluate call is not practical.'

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?

Explicitly says to use for pre-authorized operations instead of evaluate, providing clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond evaluate, but the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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