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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and behavior. The description adds that it returns names 'in all languages' and gives examples. This adds mild context but does not contradict annotations. The description's contribution is adequate given the rich annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality and includes concrete examples; the second provides usage guidance and a keyless note. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded, with zero wasted words.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, input source (TSN from search_taxa), and scope (all languages). No additional details are needed for correct usage.

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 single parameter 'tsn' is fully described in the input schema with type, description, and examples. The description reiterates 'Taxonomic Serial Number, e.g. 180582', adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'vernacular (common) names', and the input 'TSN'. It provides concrete examples like 'Bobcat' and 'lynx roux', and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_taxa and get_hierarchy by focusing specifically on common names.

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 explicitly tells users to 'Pass a TSN from search_taxa', establishing a clear prerequisite and usage context. The note 'Keyless' implies no authentication is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the direct link to search_taxa is sufficient guidance.

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