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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: unknown names fail silently with zero records, and the return payload contains lineage, per-rank record/species counts, a plain-language description, and ranked alternative matches. It does not discuss rate limits or partial-match truncation, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the user-phrasing examples that let an agent pattern-match a query to this tool, followed by scope and the web-search preference. It is dense and long for a two-parameter tool, but nearly every clause carries routing or behavioral information rather than filler.

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 correctly enumerates what comes back (full lineage, counts at each rank, description text, alternative matches with counts). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the silent-zero-records failure mode, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents both 'name' (partial names accepted, closest indexed terms ranked by count) and 'rank'. The description's example queries illustrate name usage but add no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (taxonomic names against BOLD's own index), then anchors it with concrete example queries ('how many barcodes does BOLD have for [taxon]', 'is [name] a valid taxon'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings bold_sequences and bold_specimens, which are specimen/sequence queries rather than name resolution.

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 says to PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH and to run this before a specimen or sequence query to get the exact spelling and rank BOLD indexes. It also states the consequence of skipping it: a name BOLD does not hold returns zero records with no explanation. That is when-to-use plus when-not and the alternative, all in one.

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