Get Atlas property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the assembled data ('roots, class rows, relationship rows, and the entities they reach') but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, whether it requires authentication, or any potential side effects. For a data retrieval tool, the lack of annotation means the description should at least hint at the operation type and output, but it doesn't.

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, a single sentence of 19 words, with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Assemble one property') and then lists the components. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's complexity (assembling multiple related datasets) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It explains what it returns but not how to interpret the results, what the 'entities they reach' means in practice, or whether the operation is safe. With four required parameters and a rich return, a more thorough description is warranted to ensure correct usage.

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 coverage is 75%, with three parameters documented (state, county, dataGroup) but propertyCid lacks a description. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given the moderate coverage gap, the description could compensate by explaining how propertyCid relates to the property being assembled, but it does not. The description is too generic to help an agent understand the nuances of the parameters.

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 specific verb ('Assemble') and identifies the resource ('one property') and the assembled components ('roots, class rows, relationship rows, and the entities they reach'). This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getPropertySchema, which returns the property's schema rather than its data. Still, the description conveys what the tool does without being a tautology.

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 that this tool is for retrieving a full property graph, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like queryAtlas or listPropertiesByClassName. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The context is clear enough for a knowledgeable user, but it leaves the decision to the agent without explicit routing instructions.

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