get_recent_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. It only says 'get recent bird observations' without disclosing default time windows, filtering behavior, pagination, or return format. The schema provides parameter details, but the description itself adds no behavioral nuance beyond the basic action.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or provide contextual details. It does not clarify what 'recent' means as a default (the schema says back default 14, but the description omits it), nor does it mention any limitations or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the rich context of related observation tools, the description is incomplete.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by giving example region code formats (US-NY, MX-ROO, CA-ON) that clarify the expected format for regionCode. However, it does not add meaningful semantics for the other parameters, leaving that to the schema.

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 bird observations in a region, with specific verb ('get'), resource ('bird observations'), and scope ('in a region'). It provides concrete region code examples, which helps clarify the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_historic_observations or get_notable_observations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for recent observations within a named region, as opposed to historic, notable, or nearby observations. With many sibling observation tools, the absence of usage context makes it harder for an agent to select correctly.

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