fishstat_production_by_country

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 mentions the output format ('export a CSV') and a key behavioral caveat ('The weight basis depends on the species group'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or the nature of the data returned beyond 'production tonnes'. It provides some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides key parameter details. Every word is informative; there is no redundancy or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and main options.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality, output format, and the species_code/source options. It mentions the weight basis caveat. However, it lacks details on expected input formats (e.g., year as integer, query syntax), any pagination or limits, and the structure of the returned CSV. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 explains the 'source' parameter by enumerating its values ('all, capture or aquaculture') and clarifies 'species_code' as 'exact ASFIS species_code'. It implicitly explains 'query' as the aquatic species or group. However, it does not detail the format or range for 'year', nor does it explain how 'query' interacts with 'species_code'. The description adds value but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 ('Find'), a resource ('annual production tonnes by FAO country/area'), and a purpose ('for an aquatic species or group; export a CSV'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_fishstat_species, which is for species lookup, and the copernicus tools, which are unrelated. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 context on the 'source' parameter ('all, capture or aquaculture') and mentions an optional species_code, which implies when to use those. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use search_fishstat_species to find species codes'). The usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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