Atlas coverage stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by detailing exactly what the snapshot contains (e.g., total route count, countries, URLs) and that it takes no parameters. This enriches agent understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists contents and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies exactly what is returned (routes, countries, URLs, etc.) and situates it among sibling tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description correctly states 'Takes no parameters.' This is explicit and clear, exceeding the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 tool provides a 'one-call snapshot' of atlas coverage, listing specific data like route count, countries, and URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying 'it returns no individual routes; use search_routes or famous_routes for those.'

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 says when to use the tool: 'to learn what this server can answer, to cite dataset totals, or to link a browse page.' It also tells when not to use it and directs to alternatives: 'it returns no individual routes; use search_routes or famous_routes for those.'

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