search_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 covered. The description adds useful context by clarifying that this searches historical records rather than live activity and by requiring YYYY-MM-DD dates. It does not describe result ordering or pagination, but the schema's limit parameter and the safety annotations keep this a minor omission.

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 short sentences with no fluff: the action and resource come first, usage context and the sibling alternative follow, and the format constraint is stated plainly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema, this description covers purpose, when to use it, the key alternative, and the required date format. It stops short of describing the return value structure or ordering, but that is a modest gap given the rich annotations and fully documented params. The phrase 'date range' is slightly underspecified since the schema only exposes a single date parameter.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents each parameter's format and defaults. The description reinforces the same filters ('date, species name/code, and minimum confidence') but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, aside from emphasizing the date format.

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 opens with 'Search historical detection records by date, species name/code, and minimum confidence,' naming a specific verb, resource, and the exact filter dimensions. It also explicitly contrasts with get_recent_detections, so the agent can distinguish this history search from the latest-activity sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

It states the exact conditions for use ('specific day, date range, or species across history') and names the alternative for the excluded case ('For the latest activity use get_recent_detections instead'). This is an explicit when/alternative routing with nothing left to inference.

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