get_species_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that rarity is location-specific and that taxonomy is included, but it does not explain what 'this location' refers to, how rarity is determined, or any error behavior. It is not misleading, but it is limited.

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: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the Args block documents the only parameter without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The phrase 'rarity for this location' is ambiguous because no location context is defined anywhere in the description or schema. While the output schema covers return structure, an agent may not know what location is being referenced, and there is no usage guidance to disambiguate. Adequate for a simple single-parameter lookup but with a clear gap.

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 input schema only specifies a string type with zero description coverage. The tool description fully compensates by explaining that scientific_name must be the full genus and species and provides a concrete example ('Cardinalis cardinalis'). This gives the agent everything needed to construct the parameter correctly.

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 that the tool returns species details (rarity for a location) and taxonomy for a scientific name. It conveys the resource and purpose, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool get_species_summary.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of its siblings, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The only implied condition is that a scientific name is required, which is already clear from the parameter schema.

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