atlas_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses return fields and sorting but omits behavioral traits such as data recency, latency, idempotency, or side effects. It is adequate but not transparent beyond the listed outputs.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. It efficiently conveys key points but could be structured with bullet points for clarity. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lists outputs but lacks details on response format, pagination, or prerequisites. For a tool with multiple outputs, more context would help.

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% for the single parameter 'countries' with a description 'Comma-separated ISO country codes (e.g., "IR,CN,RU")'. The description adds no extra semantics; the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 states the tool performs side-by-side multi-country profile comparisons for 2-10 countries. It lists specific outputs (max risk, SHAP top driver, incident counts, trend delta, permalinks) and sorting, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_countries or atlas_country_similarity.

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 use for comparing multiple countries but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given many sibling tools with overlapping purposes (e.g., atlas_country_similarity, compare_countries), the lack of alternatives or exclusions leaves ambiguity.

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