Get Atlas schema

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 indicates a read-only listing action, but it does not describe the return shape, whether tables and columns are returned in a single structure, error behavior, or any access requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the main behavior and the optional mode in a compact, scannable way.

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?

For a simple schema-listing tool, the description covers the core modes, but it does not explain what the returned schema data looks like and there is no output schema to compensate. An agent could invoke it correctly but might be unsure how to interpret the response.

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 already documents state, county, and dataGroup, and the description adds the key semantic that the optional 'table' parameter switches the output from table listing to column listing. This clarifies the interaction between parameters beyond what the schema alone states.

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 ('List') and clearly names the two resources it exposes: tables for a state/county/data-group scope, or columns for a single table. This is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and to distinguish it from data-querying siblings like queryAtlas.

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 phrase 'for queryAtlas' implies that this tool is meant to be used as a schema-discovery step before querying, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool over siblings such as getAtlasDatasetInfo or listPropertiesByClassName. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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