get_recent_detections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by noting that output is capped at 8KB to protect the agent context window and by listing typical return fields.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then return contents, then explicit sibling-tool routing, then the output cap note. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the return fields, the primary use case, and a system constraint (8KB cap). It does not explicitly mention error behavior or empty results, but the 'most recent' wording and output cap cover the main operational context an agent needs.

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% and every parameter has its own description with defaults and bounds (limit, species_code, min_confidence). The description does not need to add much, and it does not; it provides no extra semantic information beyond 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 a specific action ('Retrieve the most recent bird acoustic detections') and a specific resource ('BirdNET-Go observatory'), and it lists the returned data fields. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming search_detections and get_today_summary for other use cases.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this as the primary tool for "what birds were heard recently?" questions' and directs users to search_detections for historical lookups and get_today_summary for aggregates. This removes ambiguity about tool selection.

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