get_detections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the date defaults to today in the server's local timezone and documents limit bounds, but it does not mention ordering, timezone interpretation for the hour window, or any other caveats. For a read-only 'get' tool this is adequate 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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary followed by a compact bulleted argument list. Every line provides needed semantics such as formats, defaults, and ranges. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

With six parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics, defaults, validation bounds, and even timezone context for the default date. Since an output schema exists, the return shape is already structured, so nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: date format and default, hour range, duration window, species name forms, limit range with default, and offset semantics. This goes well beyond the bare 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get bird detections for a specific day.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'specific day' and optional filters, which sets it apart from get_recent_detections, get_detection, and search_detections without requiring schema inspection.

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 tool is for querying detections on a particular day with optional narrowing by hour, species, and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to pick the right tool among siblings.

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