atcDocumentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the response is HTML as it comes from the backend and explaining the semantic content of the finding, but it does not disclose error behavior or other edge cases.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and each clause serves a distinct function: clarifying what the documentation contains, where the input comes from, and what the output looks like.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential workflow: URI origin, the action performed, and the response format. Minor omissions like error handling or URI validation are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 describes docUri fully with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that the URI comes from atcWorklists, which reinforces the schema, but it does not add substantive parameter semantics 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?

The description clearly states the operation: it takes a documentation URI and returns the documentation of one ATC finding as HTML. It also distinguishes itself from atcWorklists by explicitly referencing it as the source of the URI, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'Takes the documentation URI that atcWorklists reports for a finding' gives clear context for when to use this tool, tying it to a prior workflow step. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, but the workflow implication is strong.

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