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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output contents and the requirement that the input be a resolved species id rather than a food name. However, it does not describe behavior for unknown or invalid IDs, nor any operational constraints such as authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing instruction placed second. There is no filler, repetition of schema fields, or unnecessary detail. Every sentence 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, and the description names all major output groups despite that missing schema. It also provides the necessary prerequisite step, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly. Unspecified edge-case behavior is not essential for a simple single-record getter.

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 schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage with concrete examples like 'cattle-taurus' and 'garlic'. The description reinforces that the value must be a canonical species id obtained via search_farmdex, which is useful, but it adds no format or domain detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the returned object as 'One Farmdex species' and enumerates its contents: names, taxonomy, description, external identifiers, and varieties or breeds. The closing sentence explicitly contrasts it with search_farmdex, making it obvious that this is a single-record lookup rather than a search. The implied verb from the title get_species makes the action 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 last sentence gives an explicit usage rule: resolve a food name to a species id with search_farmdex before calling this tool. This tells the agent the prerequisite and names the sibling tool to use for name-based lookup, preventing misuse with raw food names. No inference is required.

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