ebird_notable_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It merely states 'get notable/rare bird observations' without explaining what 'notable' means, whether data is recent or historical, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. The api_key parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, the brevity results in under-specification.

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?

Given the presence of three parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description should cover return structure, parameter meanings, and usage context. It does not, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (regionCode, back, api_key). For instance, 'back' likely indicates days back but is undefined. This is a critical gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 'Get notable/rare bird observations from eBird.' It specifies a verb (Get) and resource (notable/rare bird observations from eBird), and among siblings like 'ebird_recent_observations' and 'ebird_species_info', this tool is distinctly identified for notable/rare observations.

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 like 'ebird_recent_observations' or 'ebird_species_info'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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