resolve_hotspot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the tool returns specific fields (locId, full name, coordinates, URL) and that multiple matches are sorted by distance. It does not cover edge cases like no-match handling or exact vs. fuzzy matching, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed for a read-only search tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful information about purpose or behavior, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 lookup tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and how multiple results are ordered. It omits no-match behavior and pagination details, but these are not critical for a basic search tool, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'name' is a common name (not an exact ID) and that lat/lng are used for sorting by distance, which clarifies their role beyond just 'current latitude/longitude'. However, it does not add information about the 'dist' parameter, which is already well documented in 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('eBird hotspot by common name'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_nearby_hotspots. It also lists the return fields (locId, full name, coordinates, URL) and the sorting behavior, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a common name and need hotspot details) and that lat/lng are used for sorting matches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., get_nearby_hotspots or get_hotspot_info) or state when not to use it, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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