fishwatch_species_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so effectively: it discloses that the tool makes no external request and answers with a plain unavailable error. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and outcome transparency an agent needs before calling.

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 tightly written sentence pair with the retirement reason and resulting behavior front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and there is no wasted text.

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 retired endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains why the tool exists in its current form and what calling it does. The only notable gap is the absence of an explicit do-not-call directive or pointer to an alternative, which would make it fully self-contained.

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 100% and the schema already explains that the name parameter is accepted but unused because the upstream API is retired. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's current behavior: it returns a plain unavailable error and makes no request because the upstream NOAA FishWatch species API is retired. This is specific and prevents an agent from expecting useful species data, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling fishwatch_species or restate the original resource purpose beyond the name.

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 mention that the upstream API is retired strongly implies the tool should not be used for species detail, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer avoidance, but routing to a working sibling is left to inference.

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