get_species_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the output content, the ordering by detection count, the default limit, and the semantics of omitting dates. It does not mention error behavior or the absence of side effects, but for a read-only summary tool it is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear args section. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 optional-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: what the result contains, how dates and limit behave, and the ordering. It lacks explicit guidance on edge cases like empty results, but the output schema helps fill structural detail, so overall it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides only titles and defaults with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so fully: start_date and end_date are explained with format and all-time behavior, and limit is given a numeric range, default, and ordering effect. This is comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as returning per-species statistics with concrete fields (detection counts, first/last heard, average confidence), making its function specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_species_info or get_detections, but the aggregated-statistics framing is distinct enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_detections, search_detections, or get_species_info. Parameter semantics are covered, but the contextual decision of when to choose this summary view is left entirely to the agent.

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