list_country_alien_species

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that GRIIS is a register of introduced species (only some invasive) and instructs to present them as introduced rather than invasive, a critical semantic nuance. It also mentions the limitation of country coverage. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return format. The disclosed caveats add genuine value beyond the tool's name.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by crucial behavioral guidance and a sibling pointer. Every sentence earns its place; it is concise without sacrificing necessary context.

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 (list of species) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the introduced-vs-invasive distinction, and the country availability caveat. It also routes to the correct sibling for deeper analysis. The only missing piece is explicit parameter guidance, but that is partially addressed by the context of 'country' in the description. Overall, an agent would be well-equipped to use this tool correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implies 'place' refers to a country ('a country's GRIIS register') but does not explain the expected format (e.g., name vs. code). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics entirely to inference. This is a significant gap given the zero coverage.

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 ('List'), a resource ('a country's GRIIS register'), and a precise scope ('plant species... alien (non-native)'). It also differentiates itself from classify_species_in_country by explicitly directing individual species queries there. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from all siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains this tool lists introduced species, not just invasive, and instructs the agent to use classify_species_in_country for individual species to determine invasiveness. It also warns that not every country publishes a GRIIS checklist, setting expectations for potential empty results. This is more than adequate routing.

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