nc_get_dry_forest_sites

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or whether the results are filtered by default. The description adds context about the ecosystem but not about tool behavior, leaving the agent to infer from the schema parameters. This is minimal but not misleading, so a 3.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence provides contextual value about the ecosystem but doesn't bloat. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description names the resource clearly enough. It doesn't describe return format or potential response structure, but for a simple 'get list' tool, the name and description suffice. Given the simplicity and no annotations, the description covers the essential context. A 4, as it doesn't overreach but leaves minor room for more detail (e.g., typical response size).

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 schema describes all three parameters (limit, commune, fire_priority) with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3. No additional semantics are needed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('dry forest conservation sites'), and a specific location ('New Caledonia'), which clearly differentiates it from all sibling tools. Even without the schema, an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. However, among the listed sibling tools, none are similar (no other conservation or dry forest tool), so the lack of explicit routing guidance is a minor gap. Still, the dimension asks for explicit guidance, so it scores 3.

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