search_atlas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose search semantics (matches names, topics, summaries) and the limit bounds, but says nothing about whether content must be unlocked first via unlock_atlas_sources, whether this is a read-only operation, or how results are ordered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is a compact, scannable mapping of the three parameters. Slight redundancy in describing both the corpus and the matched fields, but no filler.

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 values need no explanation, and all three parameters are covered in prose. The remaining gap is relational context — whether the Atlas must be unlocked or populated (place_on_atlas) before a search is meaningful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives query examples, enumerates the six valid field values (the schema only declares a bare string with no enum), and states the limit range of 1–20 that the schema omits. It could still clarify whether field filtering is exact-match.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search the ReviewMetric Atlas") and characterizes the corpus (landmark discoveries since 1900, Nobel Prizes, frontiers) plus what fields are matched. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_frontiers or atlas_whats_new, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example queries and the enumerated field values hint at typical search intents, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_frontiers, atlas_whats_new, or trace_path. With 13 siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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