classify_species_in_country

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields (status, basis, evidence), explains the meaning of a specific status value, and instructs the agent to report honestly instead of assuming native. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'determine using records' strongly implies it.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and source list, then gives input formatting, output shape, and a necessary caveat. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the return structure, but it still names key output fields. It explains place formats and gives important behavioral guidance about GBIF gaps. It does not cover scientific_name format or explicitly route away from sibling tools, but the core call context is well covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It significantly clarifies the place parameter, explaining that it accepts a country name or ISO code with examples. However, scientific_name receives no explanation beyond what is obvious from the tool name and purpose.

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 specific action: classify a plant species as native, introduced, or invasive in a country, and names the data sources used. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_country_alien_species, so it slightly misses full differentiation.

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 its use case through its purpose and input requirements, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or mention any exclusions. Context is clear, but alternative routing is left to inference.

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