sapiens_atlas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'READ-ONLY' and 'Nenhuma escrita'. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is locked to the paid Lens, identity always comes from sessionToken, unauthorized users get only an acquisition notice, and each sub-action returns a specific kind of curated data.

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 dense but well organized: constraints and access model are front-loaded, then each sub-action is given a compact parenthetical summary, and the closing sentence restates the no-write boundary. Nothing feels redundant for a four-action tool.

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 four sub-actions, an access gate, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what each action returns, optional filters, and behavior for unauthorized users. An agent has enough to select and invoke the correct action.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, the schema already documents limit, ticker, and authorHandle, and the action enum. The description adds value by explaining what each action surfaces (e.g., overview maps ~52 curated companies with market cap and industry; signals are recent X posts with optional ticker/author filters). It does not add much beyond the schema for limit, but the action-level context is genuinely useful.

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 clearly identifies a consult/read-only resource: 'Atlas Ecossistema IA' with curated AI value-chain data, listing four sub-actions so an agent knows exactly what it offers. It doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools like sapiens_search beyond saying 'Nenhuma escrita', so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: to inform oneself and answer questions on curated ecosystem data, and it warns that users without the paid Lente receive an acquisition notice and no data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so no exclusions are provided.

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