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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the answer is live, limiting the scope to listed domains, and summarizing the return payload (verdict, evidence, datasets, purchase path). However, it does not state whether invoking is read-only or may incur charges, how out-of-scope questions are handled, or what error behavior looks like.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The examples are compact and convey both the query style and the scope, making the definition efficient and scannable.

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?

Despite clear purpose and concise wording, the definition lacks crucial operational context given there is no output schema or annotations. It does not clarify whether asking a question can initiate or surface costs through the purchase path, what bbox_source refers to in practice, or how the agent should handle unsupported question types. These gaps make it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 bbox parameter is described in the schema, including its order and the optional preset-box behavior. The question parameter has no schema description, and the tool description only partially compensates by listing acceptable question topics. It also references bbox_source, a field not present in the input schema, leaving some ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Ask a question Atlas can answer live') and enumerates concrete question categories such as seismic unusual activity, wave energy, commodity regimes, logistics safety, and alert-worthy cells. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_products or inspect_product.

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 provides clear context: this is for live natural-language questions that Atlas can answer, with examples of when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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