atlas_recommend

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: it is 'offline static knowledge: not proof of availability or ownership,' and stock-alternative mode 'uses that product and limit instead of normal recommendation criteria.' It doesn't discuss result ordering or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then mode mechanics, then the key caveat, then the follow-up tool. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed. The description covers both modes, the parameters that trigger each, the reliability caveat about static data, and the natural next step (sound_plan_palette), which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema states only in fragments: that product_id is meaningful only with stock_alternatives=true, that limit bounds results, and that prefer_stock favors stock plug-ins 'without asserting licensing.' The nested request wrapper is also clarified by the goal-criteria framing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rank Plugin Atlas products for a production problem or technique.' The two operating modes (normal ranking vs. stock-alternative lookup) further pin down what the tool returns, distinguishing it from atlas_search and atlas_get_product. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated by name.

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?

Gives concrete mode-selection rules: normal mode is driven by query/problems/techniques/sources/kind, while 'product_id and stock_alternatives=true' switches to listing stock alternatives. It also routes the agent onward ('Use sound_plan_palette to assign sounds from what is loaded'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives among atlas_* siblings, so it lands at a strong 4.

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