enrich_species_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: one API call per species, potential slowness, the ~10 second estimate for 50 species, and the sorting of results. This gives the agent and user a concrete expectation of cost and output, exceeding the basic safety profile.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover the action, usage timing, performance warning, and return behavior without repetition or fluff. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains both the return format (input list sorted) and the meaning of that order (highest-priority targets first). It also covers performance expectations and usage preconditions, making the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (species and country) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no direct parameter-level detail beyond the schema, though it does add contextual behavior about sorting and performance which is not parameter-specific.

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 appends Xeno-canto recording counts and quality grades to a species array, using the specific verb 'append' and identifying the resource. The distinct sorting behavior (fewest A-grade first) further differentiates it from siblings like get_recording_counts, making its purpose 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?

It explicitly states the only valid usage context: 'Call this ONLY after presenting a species list to the user AND receiving explicit confirmation.' It also warns about performance and instructs to warn the user for large lists, providing clear when-to-use guidance and a precaution against misuse.

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