get_recent_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 the time constraint 'up to 30 days ago' and output fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and output. It is front-loaded with key information and has no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core functionality and output fields, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, and does not explain the return format beyond listing fields. This is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for robust agent operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate with extra insights.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'recent bird observations in a region', with specific scope 'up to 30 days ago' and output details 'species, location, date, and count info'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_historic_observations' by specifying recency, and from 'get_nearby_observations' by focusing on a region rather than proximity.

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 implies usage for recent observations within a region, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_historic_observations' (for older data) or 'get_nearby_observations' (for location-based queries). It provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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