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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint and openWorldHint), the description discloses important runtime behavior: misses return found=false with guidance rather than throwing, candidates are ranked, and taxon lookup is prefix-based rather than substring-based. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior without needing to call it blindly.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The front-loaded first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the result shape and error semantics, and the third delivers a critical querying caveat. 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?

Given the rich schema, full parameter coverage, annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly: what it returns, how misses behave, the prefix limitation, and an alternative tool for richer place data. Nothing essential is missing.

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 documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: taxon q is a name prefix or exact taxon id, while other types match across record text; rank is only honored for type 'taxon'; and the find_places alternative clarifies the type parameter's boundary. These additions justify a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('common or scientific name...place, project, or observer name') and the output ('taxon id...its id'). It also distinguishes the tool as the provider of identifiers that every other tool takes, which sets it apart from sibling tools like inaturalist_get_taxon or inaturalist_find_places.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you need identifiers to feed into other tools. It also gives an explicit when-not case, noting that for a place's bounding box and containment chain, use inaturalist_find_places instead. The prefix-behavior guidance further sets expectations for successful use.

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