get_hotspot_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns observations but doesn't disclose defaults like the 14-day window (though the schema does) or response structure. It does clarify that the input is a hotspot location ID, which is useful context, but lacks details on pagination or sorting.

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, with no wasted words. It includes both a purpose statement and a practical usage tip.

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?

Without an output schema, the description could hint at return shape, but for a 'get observations' tool this is likely self-evident. The description is complete enough for a simple read tool, though it doesn't explain what makes observations 'recent' beyond the 'back' parameter.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (locId, back, maxResults), so the description doesn't need to add param details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantic info about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent bird observations') scoped to 'a specific eBird hotspot by location ID,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_recent_observations or get_hotspot_info. The mention of resolve_hotspot further clarifies its scope.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Use resolve_hotspot first if you only have a name,' giving a clear prerequisite and an alternative tool. It doesn't enumerate exclusions relative to other observation tools, but the scope is clear enough for typical use.

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