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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: it returns species in a category → subcategory → species taxonomy with local farm counts and place IDs. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or errors, but the read-only nature is clear from 'get' and the described return shape.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main idea ('Everything available near a place') and packs the output shape and IDs without waste. It earns its place and adds useful detail without bloat.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape—taxonomy with counts and place IDs. The parameters are fully covered by the input schema. The main missing piece is routing guidance to alternatives, but that is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness gap for invoking the tool.

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 province and metro params are already documented with examples. The description adds the 'near a place' context but does not provide any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the resource and output: every species with published farms near a place, organized in a taxonomy shape with counts, plus Wikidata/GeoNames IDs. It is specific but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as find_near or list_places.

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 a use case—wanting everything available near a place—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like find_near, get_species, or list_places. It does not state exclusions or conditions.

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