get_nearest_observations_for_species

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 behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation ('Find') but does not disclose return format, default values for 'recent' or 'nearest' (back/dist), or any potential limits. The schema provides parameter definitions, but the description does not explain behavioral details such as sorting, number of results, or whether the operation is safe and idempotent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without wasting tokens.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the response looks like, how 'recent' and 'nearest' are defined (though back/dist parameters exist), or how to handle edge cases. The lack of alternative tool guidance also leaves the agent under-informed for tool selection.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, each with clear understanding (e.g., speciesCode, lat, lng, back, dist). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Find'), the resource ('nearest recent observation of a specific species'), and the context ('to a location'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nearby_observations (general nearby observations) and get_observations_for_species (species-specific without location context).

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 usage for finding nearest recent observations of a species near a location, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like get_nearby_observations or get_observations_for_species are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the distinguishing use case from the wording.

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