fish_available

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

The description does not disclose its read-only nature or any authentication requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only mentions defaults and output fields. It is adequate but not comprehensive, lacking details on side effects or data freshness.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and defaults, and the second lists output fields. Every phrase is informative with no waste.

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 simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the output fields. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., list of fish names), but it is adequate for a basic query tool.

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 value by explaining default behaviors for 'season' (current save's season) and 'weather' (any weather), which compensates for the lack of descriptions in the schema for these parameters. The schema already describes 'save_path' and 'only_uncaught' well.

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 returns fish catchable under given conditions, with explicit defaults. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fishing_xp_forecast by focusing on availability rather than experience or pond forecasts.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context for choosing this tool over other fishing-related tools, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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