Animal Checklist

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), lowering the bar. The description adds valuable disclosure about the output payload (all common names, full photo credit, Wikipedia summary), which is beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, so it's not a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the payload. Every clause earns its place; there's no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a straightforward detail lookup with only two parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly: it knows the identifier comes from search_animals, that language is configurable, and what rich data to expect. No gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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 schema documents both the slug provenance and the lang enum. The description doesn't add parameter-specific syntax, but its enumeration of returned fields implies that lang affects localized content (common names, Wikipedia summary). This goes slightly beyond the schema's generic 'Display language', though the baseline for full coverage is 3.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (one species), and immediately enumerates the rich payload it returns. It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't contrast itself against siblings like search_animals or list_countries, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail-fetch step after a search, reinforced by the schema's note that the id comes 'from search_animals'. There's no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context: the result is a fixed set of seven groups with labels and counts. It does not mention the default-language behavior or result stability, but adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the output, the second gives the call-first directive. No filler or repetition of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed in prose, and the description covers purpose, usage ordering, and language handling. Only minor gaps remain, such as what 'category' values look like, which the output schema presumably covers.

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% and the enum plus default are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to 'requested language,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the seven species groups') with scope (label in requested language plus species count). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling lookup/search tools like get_animal and search_animals.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to 'Call first to learn the valid `category` values,' which gives a clear sequencing/precondition for the tool. It stops short of naming which sibling tools consume that category value or stating exclusions, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope ('carries observations') and notes the returned species count, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or edge cases, so it adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant qualification.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what is returned (ISO country codes with observations and species counts) and requires no further clarification for correct invocation.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every ISO country code' that has observations, and it clearly states the output includes a species count. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_animal and search_animals, which target different resources.

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 when a country-level overview of observations is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. There is no direct routing to get_animal, list_categories, or search_animals.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are ranked by iNaturalist observations and returned as a single page of card-sized records, which tells the agent about ordering and pagination 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the search capability, then ranking, then result shape. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still usefully notes ranking and page size. The only gap is the interplay between per and page for pagination, though that is partially covered by the schema.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps free text, language, scientific name, category, habitat and ISO country to the parameters. It does not explain the per/page sizes or limits, which remain only in the schema, so this falls just short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (species) plus the matching modes (free text in eight languages, scientific name) and filter dimensions. An agent can tell it apart from get_animal, list_categories and list_countries, which are single-item or enumeration lookups rather than searches.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search ... with optional ... filters', and the sibling names make it inferable that this is the discovery entry point, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. use get_animal once you have an id).

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