get_recent_detections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is a read, that results are ordered by recency, and that the limit has a range of 1-50. However, it does not mention time-window semantics, pagination, empty-result behavior, or any permissions/rate limits, leaving partial transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a single essential parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant explanation.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what is returned, the recency ordering, and the limit's range/default. It could more explicitly state how recency is determined and how this tool differs from siblings, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter is fully explained in the description: 'Number of detections to return (1-50, default 15).' This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides type and default. The range and semantic intent are exactly what an agent needs.

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 names a precise action and resource: 'Get the most recent bird detections.' The plain-language cue 'what's been heard lately?' reinforces the recency focus and clearly separates this tool from siblings like get_detections (generic list) and search_detections (search).

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 natural use case—retrieving the latest detections—but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over get_detections or search_detections, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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