get_species_profile

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

The action verb '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, and the description lists the data categories returned. While annotations are absent, the description is sufficiently transparent about the tool being a retrieval with no side effects.

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?

Single line in Chinese, front-loads the main purpose, and efficiently enumerates key data categories. Every part is necessary and informative.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the main content areas (classification, parameters, price, etc.). Lacks specification of output format but sufficient for basic understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter species_id described as '品种ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a complete species profile and lists specific content areas (classification, husbandry parameters, price, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings like search_species which likely return summaries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_species or identify_turtle. The usage context is implied but not stated, leaving the AI to infer without exclusion criteria.

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