get_species_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does indicate this is a read operation ('Get') and reveals the output format ('species codes'), but it does not mention potential large response size, pagination, permissions, or rate limits. It adds some useful context but falls short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and the return type. The statement 'returns species codes' provides enough output context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 already provides a full description and example for the only parameter (regionCode), and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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'), resource ('all species ever recorded in a region'), and explicitly states the output ('returns species codes'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_recent_observations or get_taxonomy by emphasizing the historical, comprehensive scope and the code-only return.

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 such as get_recent_observations or get_observations_for_species. It lacks any prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit use cases beyond restating the tool's basic function.

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