List Atlas properties

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only listing intent and names the result items, but it does not mention pagination (despite limit/offset parameters), result ordering, possible large result sets, or return format. The 'list' verb implies safety, but explicit disclosure is lacking.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action verb 'List' and then stating the resource and scope. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core operation, even if 'data-group roots' is not fully self-explanatory.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description gives the essential gist and names the expected result items. However, it omits pagination behavior and a clear return structure, which an agent would need to handle large datasets correctly. It is adequate but not complete.

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 60%; state, county, and dataGroup are described with examples, while limit and offset have no descriptions. The description reinforces that the three required parameters define the selection scope but adds no detail about limit/offset behavior. The parameter names are self-explanatory, so a mid-range score 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?

The description states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('property CIDs and data-group roots'), with an explicit scope ('of one state/county/data group'). It helps differentiate from siblings like getAtlasProperty and listPropertiesByClassName, though the phrase 'data-group roots' is somewhat jargony and could be clearer.

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 given on when to use this tool over alternatives such as listPropertiesByClassName or listClassesByDataGroup. The only hint is the scope phrase 'one state/county/data group', which implies a single geo/data scope but does not explicitly exclude other cases.

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