get_historic_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or any limitations. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful transparency beyond the obvious.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler words or redundant details; it earns its place perfectly.

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 (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential context: it identifies the date and region scope. However, it omits mention of optional maxResults and does not describe the return structure, though the schema covers parameter details. Overall, it is adequate for a basic retrieval 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 schema descriptions cover all 5 parameters at 100% coverage, providing clear meaning for each (e.g., 'eBird region code', 'Day (1-31)'). The description adds no additional parameter context, so 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('bird observations'), and the scope ('from a specific date in history at a region'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recent_observations and get_nearby_observations, which focus on different time/location dimensions.

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 when to use the tool (when you need historical observations for a specific date at a region) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools like get_recent_observations or guidance on when not to use this tool, making usage context only implicit.

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