atlas_risk_tiers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the tool is static and used for triage/models, but does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when called (e.g., returns all countries or requires filters). The behavior is simple but not fully transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and context without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. It does not mention whether the output is a map, list, or any structure. Given the tool's simplicity (no params), the lack of output description is a gap that reduces 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the input schema fully covers the interface. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable. Given schema coverage is 100%, baseline is high.

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 provides country risk-tier assignments (tiers 1-5) for all monitored countries. It specifies it is a static censorship-risk classification used as a model feature and for triage, distinguishing it from other atlas_* tools that deal with dynamic or similarity data.

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 states the tool provides static risk tiers used as a model feature and for triage, which implies it should be used when the baseline classification is needed, not for real-time or comparative analysis. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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