search_fishstat_species

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the lookup function; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral trait.

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?

A single sentence that is compact and front-loaded. It states the action, resource, lookup method, and a domain-specific example without filler or 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description is minimally adequate: the required query's semantics are stated and limit is a common optional parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the absence of any detail about the response format or result behavior leaves a notable gap.

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%, and the description clarifies that 'query' accepts a species name or code, which is useful. However, the 'limit' parameter is not described at all, and the unusual 'including oysters/ostras' clause adds no parameter-level detail. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('FishStat aquatic species or species groups'), and adds the lookup mode 'by name or code'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like search_copernicus_datasets, but the FishStat scope is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 this tool is for searching FishStat species by name or code, but it provides no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. No explicit usage versus sibling tools is given.

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