fws_species

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful domain context (status code meanings and taxonomic groups) but does not disclose pagination, default behavior with no filters, or result format. Adequate but not rich beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, filter options, and domain explanations. Every sentence contributes unique information, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Covers purpose, filters, and domain vocabulary adequately. Could mention the existence of fws_species_detail for follow-up details or the default limit behavior, but for a search tool with five optional parameters, it is largely complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by expanding the status codes (E, T, C, PE, PT) and providing taxonomic group examples, which are only tersely mentioned in the schema. Enhances understanding beyond parameter names.

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: 'Search threatened and endangered species from the US Fish & Wildlife Service.' The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling fws_species_detail by focusing on the search/list capability.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use the tool via filterable dimensions (name, status, state, group), but does not explicitly mention alternatives like fws_species_detail for detailed records. Lacks exclusions but gives enough context for typical use.

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