env_hunting_species

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by stating the data is static (no network), embedded, and contains exactly 36 species across categories. This context complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 structured with clear paragraphs and XML tags for use case and important notes. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, how it works (static embedded), output format (list with codes and names), and usage context (reference for env_hunting_stats). It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description does mention the only parameter (response_format) and its possible values ('markdown' oder 'json'). However, it does not explain the difference between formats or how they affect output, leaving the agent to infer from the enum. This is adequate for a simple parameter but not exemplary.

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 lists animal species with their codes from the Swiss hunting statistics, and explicitly links it to the sibling tool env_hunting_stats for reference. The verb 'listet auf' and resource 'Tierarten mit Codes' are specific and distinguish it from other environmental tools.

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 includes a use case tag explicitly recommending use before querying env_hunting_stats to obtain valid species codes. It implies a lookup-only purpose but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which prevents a 5.

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