atlas_case_study_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds value by detailing default response (slim, truncated to 240 chars), the include parameter for full details, and the return structure (query, total, results, next_calls). No contradictions with 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?

Description is brief yet comprehensive. One sentence each for search capability, default behavior, use case, drill alternative, rate limits, and return format. No filler or 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?

With 4 well-documented parameters in schema and an output schema present (mentioned in description), the description covers usage, alternatives, rate limits, default vs full detail, and return structure. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description mainly restates schema info (e.g., keyword substring match, technique_id format) but adds minimal new context like 'Min 2 chars' for keyword (already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Search' with resource 'ATLAS case studies', and distinguishes from sibling tools like atlas_case_study_lookup (for full procedure) and atlas_technique_search (for techniques). Clearly states the tool's scope and how it differs from alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user has a technique in hand and wants to see incidents that exercised it.' Also directs to atlas_case_study_lookup for full procedure list, providing clear when-not guidance. Mentions rate limits add context for usage constraints.

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