verify_sighting

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a confidence level and count of research-grade reports, indicating a read-only verification behavior. However, it does not mention any potential limitations, authentication needs, or what happens when no data is found, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains return values (confidence level, count) but lacks details on the format or computation of confidence. The tool involves two external data sources, so additional context on data freshness or errors would improve completeness.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about cross-referencing between eBird and iNaturalist, but does not deepen meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., species name, lat/lng, radius, days_back).

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: cross-referencing an eBird species sighting against iNaturalist photo-verified observations. It specifies the verb (cross-reference) and the resources (eBird, iNaturalist), and distinguishes from sibling tools like best_day_to_bird or migration_forecast, which focus on timing or location rather than verification.

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 when one needs to verify a sighting with photo evidence, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like species_finder or compare_hotspots. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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