atlas_score

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 discloses the score composition and mentions backward compatibility, but does not detail behaviors such as data freshness, recalculation frequency, or any side effects. This is adequate but not extensive.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, composition, and usage guidance. 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 has no output schema, the description partly explains the return (0-100 + A-F) but does not elaborate on interpretation or practical use. With many sibling tools, this description is minimally complete for its backward-compatibility role.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%.

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 is a composite 0-100 + A-F grade per watched country, with a detailed breakdown of components (40% forecast, 25% incident density, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from atlas_score_v2, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance to prefer atlas_score_v2 for chronic-blocking countries, indicating when not to use this tool. However, it does not fully specify when to use it beyond backward compatibility, leaving some ambiguity for general cases.

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