It's largely up to personal taste. Every font claims to be legible. Every font claims to improve over previous fonts. Every font combines all of the standard ascii characters and many unicode characters styled as the designer considered best, which you may agree with on some letters and not others.

Serif fonts usually have more legibility at the cost of aesthetic. San serif fonts usually work well at more font sizes, but lack visual cues. What is important is that it works for you, and that, if you are using it for legibility, it disambiguates 0 from O and I from l, and perhaps more importantly, remains legible and pleasant to the eye even when small or very large. Another concern not addressed by this or most other fonts is dyslexia. The font used on this website is simple arial on my platform, and does this well. Arial has long since been the standard for legibility. But it is not pretty.

I personally find that the atkinson is legible enough, but in this respect is not objectively superior to simple arial or other serif fonts. as with all fonts there is compromise and it is not the most attractive font to me, as it is a sans-serif font trying to be a serif font with concern to legibility aspects only. Another legible font which pulls off the compromise possibly better is goldman sachs, although it does not have a slash through the 0 number character. It is free to use and the only provision on the font is that it not be used to suggest affiliation with or endorsement by the bank.

There are hundreds of fonts, and many open source clones of fonts. One might wish that the dyslexie font or heinemann special font were available as an open source clone. But the question of what is truly ideal for a font to be as well as how to best achieve it remains unsolved.