env_hunting_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the tool's read-only nature. The description adds transparency by disclosing that the underlying endpoint is undocumented and that a schema guard handles structural changes, plus specifying the data owner (BAFU). This goes beyond 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 well-structured with separate paragraphs and XML tags for use_case and important_notes. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides additional context. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool, earning a 4.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description explains the return value as yearly values (total and classes) or an actionable hint. It covers parameters well via schema, and adds usage context. However, it lacks detail on the exact structure of markdown vs JSON response. Still, for a tool with 4 parameters and a string output, this is fairly 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?

Although the input schema covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions, the description adds some extra context (e.g., species via name or code, values per age/sex class, total is sum, hunting year definition). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the added value is marginal but present.

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 retrieves time series of Federal Hunting Statistics (kill, population, release, or accidental game numbers) per species and canton for 2015-2024. It specifies the data types and time range. While it distinguishes from sibling env_hunting_species implicitly, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a use_case tag explaining when to use the tool (e.g., tracking development of kill or accidental numbers over time) and important_notes with details on species coding and hunting year definition. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct usage.

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