get_historic_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get observations' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (since there's no output schema). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with 11 parameters.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get observations from a specific date in history.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. However, it's arguably too concise given the tool's complexity (11 parameters), leaving out necessary context that could be added in another sentence.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'observations' entail (e.g., biological data), how results are returned, or any limitations. With rich schema but no other structured fields, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, but it falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying date-based filtering ('from a specific date'), which is already covered by the required year, month, and day parameters in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Get observations from a specific date in history' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('observations'), but it's vague about what type of observations (e.g., bird sightings, weather data) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_recent_observations' or 'get_nearby_observations' that also retrieve observations. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for observations (e.g., 'get_recent_observations', 'get_nearby_observations'), the description doesn't specify that this is for historical data by date, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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