Query Atlas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of being read-only and scoped to one state/county/data group, which is valuable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, result formatting, error handling, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a SQL query tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only essential detail. The reference to getAtlasSchema is directly useful and not extraneous. No wasted words.

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 SQL query tool with no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the shape of the response, how limit behaves, what happens on invalid SQL, or how results are ordered. The pointer to getAtlasSchema is helpful but does not cover the operational details an agent needs to confidently invoke the tool.

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 description adds meaning to the sql parameter by specifying it must be a SELECT query, and it connects to getAtlasSchema to define valid table names. This compensates for the schema lacking descriptions for sql and limit. State/county/dataGroup already have descriptions in the schema, so the description focuses where it adds value.

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 verb ('Run'), a resource ('read-only SELECT over the synchronized tables'), and a clear scope ('one state/county/data group'). It is clearly distinct from sibling metadata tools like getAtlasSchema or listPropertiesByClassName, which are for schema discovery, not data querying.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to run a SELECT query against synced tables. It also provides a useful pointer that table names come from getAtlasSchema. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other query patterns, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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