get_recording_counts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (total count and per-grade breakdown) and the non-speculative usage policy. However, it doesn't disclose potential edge cases like species not found, zero recordings, or rate limits, so transparency is partial but not contradicted.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage guidance, and the use case. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (total count and per-grade breakdown) and the context for when to call it. It lacks fine-grained output format details, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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 is 100%, with both 'speciesName' and 'country' already described in the input schema. The description repeats the scientific name requirement but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 tool returns a summary count of Xeno-canto recordings broken down by quality grade (A-E). It specifies the exact resource (Xeno-canto recordings) and the unique output format (per-grade breakdown), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle observations or checklists.

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 explicit usage conditions: 'Use this ONLY after you have already presented a species list to the user and they have confirmed they want recording gap data' and 'Do not call this speculatively.' It does not name alternative tools, but the clear when/when-not instructions exceed the 'clear context' threshold, just missing explicit alternatives.

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