view_checklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds essential context about the batching/looping restriction and the source of subId, which are beyond the schema. It stops short of stating read-only behavior explicitly, but 'View' implies it, so the added warning earns a solid score.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: a clear definition, a source/usage hint, and a critical warning. No redundancy or filler, and the warning is visually emphasized with caps for attention. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, where the input comes from, and a critical constraint. The return content is implied by 'full species list', and no further details seem necessary for correct invocation.

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 schema already fully describes subId with an example, so baseline is 3. The description enhances it by explaining where to obtain subId (from get_recent_checklists or observation payloads) and when to skip extra queries, adding practical meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 'View the full species list for a specific eBird checklist' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling observation tools by focusing on a checklist's species list, not individual observations or region data.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use: when you have a subId from get_recent_checklists or observation results. It even directs to 'call this directly with no extra queries needed' and includes a strong warning against looping/batching, providing clear usage constraints and alternatives.

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