atcWorklists

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 behavioral context by emphasizing the worklist is 'existing' and by contrasting with atcCheck, making clear this tool does not run checks and only returns findings already held by the worklist.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and the routing guidance without redundancy. The most important scoping fact, that this is an existing worklist lookup, is front-loaded, and the sibling preference is stated efficiently.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers what it returns, the key identifier concept, and the preferred alternative. Optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only clarifies the core lookup concept ('by id'), which mostly aligns with the schema's own 'ID of the ATC run result' description, adding no substantial new parameter meaning.

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 the resource as an existing ATC worklist and says it contains the findings it holds, which is specific enough to understand the tool's function. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' so it stops just short of a 5, but it does distinguish itself from atcCheck by naming that sibling.

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 explicitly directs the agent to prefer atcCheck, which 'opens a worklist, runs the checks and reports them in one call.' This clearly implies atcWorklists is for retrieving an existing worklist without running checks, giving both an alternative and the condition for choosing it.

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