plan_birding_trip

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 states the output ('ranked hotspots with migration context') but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The agent cannot infer whether this tool is read-only or has any constraints beyond the basic operation.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently conveys the core functionality but could benefit from a brief usage note or example. No extraneous content is present.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on ranking criteria, return format, data sources' recency, or geographic coverage. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent needing precise information.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (location, date, radius_km). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying defaults or accepted formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter semantics adequately.

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: 'Plan a birding trip by finding the best nearby hotspots, combining recent species diversity, notable sightings, and BirdCast migration data. Returns ranked hotspots with migration context.' It uses a specific verb ('Plan') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'migration_forecast' and 'hotspot_details' by focusing on a combined, ranked output.

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 the tool is for planning a trip by integrating multiple data sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'migration_forecast' alone or 'compare_hotspots'). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, limiting the agent's ability to decide contextually.

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