atlas_severity_grades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool counts countries by grade, indicating a read-only aggregation with no side effects. However, it lacks details on data freshness, response structure, or any constraints (e.g., authentication, rate limits), which are important for safe invocation.

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 comprises two succinct sentences that front-load the key information (distribution of A-F grades) and specify the action (counts countries per bucket). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple aggregation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (counts per grade bucket) but does not enumerate the exact grades (A-F) or mention whether the distribution is real-time or precomputed. Some minor gaps exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no param-level semantics. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The schema coverage is 100% (no params to document), and the description does not need to compensate further.

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 returns the distribution of A-F severity grades across all monitored countries, using a specific verb ('counts') and resource ('countries in each grade bucket'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like atlas_score_v2 and atlas_risk_tiers by focusing on grade buckets rather than raw scores or risk tiers.

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 obtaining an overview of severity distribution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., atlas_risk_tiers, atlas_score_v2). No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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