atlas_domain_delta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'recent window' but does not define the time window. It does not disclose default behavior (e.g., how many movers returned without limit), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The limit parameter is in the schema but not elaborated in the description.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it lacks a structured breakdown of behavior or parameters, but overall no waste.

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?

For a tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and two optional params, the description is somewhat complete but still leaves gaps: it does not explain the return format, how the 'recent window' is defined, or how the tool fits among many siblings. More context on expected output would improve completeness.

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 explains both parameters. The description adds only that domain filtering is optional, which is already clear from the schema. No additional constraints or formatting info are provided.

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's purpose: identifying domains gaining or losing blocking countries over a recent window. It specifies the key concept (newly blocked/unblocked) and mentions filtering by domain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_domain_blocked or get_domain_history.

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 usage for detecting recent changes in blocking status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., atlas_domain_importance or get_domain_history). No when-not guidance or alternative tool names are provided.

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