get_observations_for_species

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get recent observations' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose details like what 'recent' means, whether results are limited, or any rate limits or authentication needs. The 'back' parameter in the schema adds some context, but the description itself is minimal.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it omits some contextual details that could be helpful.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse to be complete. It does not explain what the response looks like, the meaning of 'recent', or how this tool differs from the many similar sibling tools. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks broader context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters, including an example for speciesCode. The description does not need to compensate.

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 gets recent observations for a specific species in a region, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from generic recent observations but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_recent_observations or get_nearest_observations_for_species.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, and no exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage cues.

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