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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine operational context beyond that: it is authoritative rather than aggregated, filters conjunctively combine as AND, and the true match count is always returned regardless of limit. It does not cover pagination behavior explicitly, but offset/limit are handled in the schema.

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 front-loaded with the real usage patterns before the data/return summary, and every sentence carries information. The four quoted user utterances plus the data enumeration make it denser than strictly necessary, but nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so completely (record fields listed). Combined with the schema's parameter docs and the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret results.

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 the schema itself already explains each parameter in depth, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by declaring that filters intersect (taxon + country + institution + BIN) — a parameter-interaction semantic not stated in the schema — which is the incremental value the description should provide.

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 names a specific resource (authoritative BOLD specimen/voucher records) with an explicit verb framing via user-utterance examples, and enumerates what is returned (process ID, taxonomy, BIN, locality, institution, marker, GenBank accession). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings bold_sequences and bold_taxonomy by virtue of being the voucher-record endpoint rather than sequence or taxonomy lookup.

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 ('has this species been barcoded, where, and by whom') and gives four concrete user-question patterns. It also explicitly routes the agent away from an alternative ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and explains why, plus documents that filters combine as AND.

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