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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explicitly stating 'no auth required' and describing the data source as a global citizen-science community. It also previews the return fields, which complements the output schema. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and it goes beyond the basic read-only safety profile.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first covers purpose and filters, the second lists return fields, and the third gives data source and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, data provenance, and authentication. It does not mention pagination or the requirement for at least one filter, but those are covered by the schema and output schema, so the description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by grouping parameters semantically: species via taxon_name or taxon_id, place via place_id, and lat/lng radius as a combined filter. This helps an agent understand which parameters are alternatives and how they relate, which is not explicit in the flattened schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Search real-world wildlife sightings') and enumerates the filter dimensions and return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inaturalist.observations.species_counts and inaturalist.taxa.search by describing what is searched and returned, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 by listing filter types and the return content, and references inaturalist.places_search as a source for place_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like species_counts or taxa.search, nor does it mention the requirement that at least one filter be provided (which appears only in the schema). This leaves some guidance up to inference.

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