get_top_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. It discloses the output structure (species, display_name, max_value, risk_level, category) and time specificity (today). However, it lacks explicit mention of being read-only or non-destructive, though the read nature is implied.

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 concise: a lead sentence stating the purpose, followed by a short list of output fields and one additional note about the limit parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and default behavior. It could be improved by noting timezone or edge cases (e.g., no data), but is sufficient for correct usage.

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 limit parameter's default and function, but provides no additional meaning for lat/lon beyond their names. This partially adds value but leaves a gap for the required coordinates.

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 'Get the top contributing pollen species at a specific point today,' specifying a verb, resource, location, and time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_area_average (averages) and get_pollen (all species).

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?

Provides concrete usage examples ('what pollen is highest in Oslo right now?') and states it returns a ranked list. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context of sibling tools implies alternatives for different queries.

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