atlas_civic_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions returning a JSON string with a summary, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or error handling behavior (e.g., if location is not found). Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose and a structured Args/Returns block. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the core function. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple input schema (one string parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (JSON string with summary) and the input. It is largely complete, though missing edge cases or error details. For a straightforward tool, this is sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage (no description for the 'location' property). The description adds 'Neutral place name', which gives meaningful guidance beyond the type 'string'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 gets 'active civic or disruption signals' with specific examples (floods, closures, demonstrations, roadworks). It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like atlas_aqi_context and atlas_weather_context.

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 implies usage for disruption queries but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling tools provide context. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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