search_atlas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists corpus statistics. It does not disclose result structure, ranking behavior, matching semantics, or expected output beyond the schema's limit field.

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 the core action stated first. It is somewhat stats-heavy but remains compact and readable.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains what corpus is searched but not what a search returns, how results should be interpreted, or how the three siblings should be combined.

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 the schema already explains query, lang, and limit. The description adds corpus context but no additional parameter meaning or examples beyond what the schema 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 uses a clear verb+resource ("Search the Jiangshan Historical Atlas") and enumerates the entity types covered, which helps an agent understand scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from inspect_place and inspect_person, but the search-vs-inspect distinction is reasonably implied.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use search_atlas versus inspect_place or inspect_person. It also does not describe whether search is exploratory, exact-match, or how to proceed after getting results.

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