get_nearby_species_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent observations' but does not specify timeframes, data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or return formats. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate, though it hints at recency and location-based filtering. A score of 2 reflects partial but insufficient behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance, but it does not, resulting in a low score.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies parameters like location and species but does not explain their roles or interactions (e.g., how 'back' and 'dist' affect results). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema documents parameters adequately, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 purpose: 'Get recent observations of a specific species near a location.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('observations'), and scope ('recent,' 'specific species,' 'near a location'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_nearby_observations' or 'get_nearest_species_observations,' which reduces the score from 5 to 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_nearby_observations,' 'get_nearest_species_observations'), there is no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. This lack of differentiation results in a score of 2, as it offers minimal usage direction.

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