When and where a marine species peaks

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

The caveat "Recorded sightings, never a promise of encounters" is a strong behavioral disclosure, and naming GBIF as data source adds useful context. With no annotations present, though, the description does not explain how coordinates affect the regional windows, whether unsupported species return empty or error, or what the actual output contract looks like.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the key output before adding the caveat. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the non-guarantee of sightings hard to miss.

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?

The description covers the headline output and data source, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left with too many unknowns: how lat/lng alter regional windows, what set of species is supported, and whether the result is a ranking, a calendar representation, or something else. It is adequate for a first understanding, but not enough to call with confidence in less-common coordinate-specific requests.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the optional lat and lng parameters. It mentions regional season windows but never connects them to the coordinate inputs, leaving an agent to guess how lat/lng refine the result. Only species is meaningfully described, via examples in the schema.

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 what the tool provides: a month-by-month seasonality view with peak month and regional season windows for marquee dive species. It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on species-specific GBIF sightings rather than general dive windows, site facts, or best-time-to-dive lookup.

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 use case is implied by the description: an agent should call this when a user wants species-level seasonality or peak encounter windows. However, the description never names alternatives like find_dive_windows, best_time_to_dive, or site_facts, nor does it state when those are more appropriate.

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