fws_species_detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get detailed information' aligns with that. The description adds value by listing the included content areas (listing history, critical habitat, recovery plans, range), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return format or pagination. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second lists included details. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains zero filler, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what input is needed, where the input comes from, and what information is returned. It lacks details on output structure, but given the low complexity and presence of annotations, 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'tsn', which already includes 'Taxonomic Serial Number from fws_species results'. The description merely repeats 'by TSN', adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action ('Get detailed information about a listed species') and identifies the resource/input (TSN). It distinguishes this tool from its likely sibling fws_species by focusing on retrieving details for a single species rather than searching or listing.

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 the usage context: you must have a TSN, and the parameter description further clarifies that the TSN comes from fws_species results. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear 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.