atlas_contagion_chain

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the predictive nature, use of historical patterns and regime similarity, and that it returns ranked countries. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the non-destructive nature is inferred. A 4 is appropriate as it provides useful context beyond the schema.

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?

One sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and effectively communicates the tool's purpose and mechanism. 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it, including the input format and expected output.

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%, with the 'trigger' parameter described as an ISO code. The description adds 'triggering country' context but no additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already 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?

The description clearly states it produces a 'predictive contagion chain' for a triggering country, returning ranked downstream countries based on historical patterns and regime similarity. It distinguishes from siblings like atlas_contagion_watchlist and 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 when a censorship event occurs in a country to predict spread. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear and the tool's purpose is well-defined among siblings.

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