Read eBird API Schema

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes 'side effects: none (read-only local file access)' and 'Cost note: full schema is large; use summary first.' While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description provides practical implementation details about payload size and local access.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the core purpose, lists required inputs, explains defaults and options, and ends with behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on return values (since no output schema exists) and doesn't fully explain all parameter interactions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining parameter semantics: it clarifies that mode has 'summary' and 'full' options, maxPaths defaults to 25, pathPrefix is optional, and confirmLargePayload is required for full mode. However, it doesn't fully explain all parameters (e.g., exact meaning of pathPrefix).

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('inspect', 'read') and identifies the resource ('eBird OpenAPI contract used by this server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_birdweather_api by specifying the eBird API schema, not other APIs or system prompts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use summary first' due to cost concerns, and specifies when to use mode='full' (with confirmLargePayload=true). It implicitly contrasts with siblings by focusing on eBird API inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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