atlas_places_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with 3 demo options including rating, open_now, safety reasons) which adds value. However, it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or auth requirements, leaving gaps.

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 brief and well-structured, with a clear first-line purpose followed by parameter explanations and return info. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant text.

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 2 parameters (1 required) and mentions a demo output, the description explains parameters and return format adequately. However, it lacks context on error handling, rate limits, and the 'demo' nature (whether it returns real data). This makes it somewhat incomplete for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'location' as a neutral place name and 'query' as the type of venue, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. This helps an agent understand parameter intent, though more detail on valid values would be beneficial.

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 searches for places or food options, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like atlas_aqi_context (air quality) and atlas_weather_context (weather) by its focus on places/food search.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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