atlas_search

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world (openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the catalog is bundled/offline, requires no FL connection, and search hits do not imply installation or ownership. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but the safety/behavior profile is well covered.

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 scoping statement and the offline/no-ownership caveat are front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of filters and a routing sentence naming the three alternatives. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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-shape detail is unnecessary. The description covers the tool's offline nature, the meaning of a hit, the filter set, and the sibling alternatives an agent might otherwise confuse it with, which is everything needed to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every filter, its default, and its bounds. The description only paraphrases the schema by listing which fields narrow results and that limit caps hits, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and resource (the bundled offline Plugin Atlas for products) and explicitly scopes it with 'by text and filters'. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming atlas_get_product, atlas_recommend, and atlas_match_loaded with their distinct roles.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: atlas_get_product for one product's details, atlas_recommend for a production goal, atlas_match_loaded to identify plug-ins in the open project. It also sets the expectation that no FL connection is needed and that a hit does not mean the product is installed or owned.

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