check_life_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose key return behavior ('Returns first observation date and country if found'), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or how it behaves when the species is not on the list. For a simple check tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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: two short sentences that effectively front-load the main purpose and then detail the return value. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the purpose and the expected return fields. It slightly lacks detail on the 'not found' case, but overall it is complete enough for straightforward usage.

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 input schema already covers the parameter fully with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('your life list'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_life_list_stats or import_life_list. It also specifies the exact output (first observation date and country), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 use case: when you want to check if a single species is on your life list. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternatives, such as using get_life_list_gaps_nearby for broader gap analysis. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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