check_species_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool searches two databases but does not disclose aspects like side effects (none, it's read-only), performance, or error handling. The description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 composed of three concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with usage context and specific databases. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not detailed in the description), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and databases. However, it lacks detail about the output format, which limits completeness slightly. Still, it is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides a description and examples for the only parameter 'species_list.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameter, but given that the schema coverage includes a description, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra value is added.

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 function: 'Check which database contains specific species.' It also specifies the databases searched (GRI-Mech 3.0 and NASA Gas Database), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_species_in_mechanism which list species in a single mechanism.

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 context: 'Useful for planning simulations and verifying species availability before calculations.' This implies the tool should be used before other computational tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so there is room for improvement.

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