get_new_species

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior; it does clarify that 'new' means globally first-ever detection, which is important. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as sort order, computational cost, or whether species with no recent detections are excluded, though the output schema may cover the return shape.

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 compact, with the semantic intent front-loaded and the argument documentation precise and easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter, zero-required lookup tool with an output schema available, the definition is nearly complete: purpose, look-back window, and limit constraints are all present. The only meaningful gap is an explicit pointer to sibling tools for disambiguation, but that is not essential for executing the call correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: 'days' is defined as the look-back window with default 30, and 'limit' as max species to return with range 1-100 and default 25. This adds real meaning beyond the raw integer types in the input 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 defines the resource (species) and the unique criterion ('detected for the first time ever') with a temporal window, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_recent_detections. The quoted user intent 'anything new lately?' reinforces the function's purpose. Though it lacks an explicit imperative verb, the tool name and phrasing make the action unambiguous.

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 quoted use case ('anything new lately?') provides a clear trigger for when to choose this tool. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_recent_detections for ordinary recent detections, leaving the contrast only implied.

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