blv_get_avian_influenza

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that data includes geodata and detection dates, which is useful but not extensive. Since annotations already handle behavioral transparency, the description provides adequate but minimal extra context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then state the use case. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (2 optional parameters, complete schema descriptions, existing annotations, and an output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the data source, content, and primary use case without needing to detail output fields.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (year and canton). The description reinforces the canton parameter by mentioning 'optionally narrowed to one canton' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 retrieves wild bird avian influenza (H5N1/HPAI) surveillance data with geodata, specifying the subject (avian influenza), source (wild birds), and nature (surveillance with geodata). This distinguishes it from siblings like blv_get_animal_health_stats which cover other animal health topics.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'locate and date wild-bird avian influenza detections, optionally narrowed to one canton.' It does not list when not to use or offer alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no further guidance is needed. The granularity of 'optionally narrowed' clarifies when the canton parameter is useful.

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