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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, but the description adds real behavior: prefix matching on any word, a hard cap of 10 results, and the specific fields returned (key, group, IUCN category, status). The result-limit disclosure is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what it matches and how, the second front-loads the return contract. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description supplies both the matching semantics and an enumeration of returned fields plus the result cap. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is met; the description goes further by clarifying that matching works from the start of any word in a multi-word common name, illustrated with concrete examples.

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 (find) and resource (species of India) with the exact lookup keys (Latin name or English common name). It also signals the downstream relationship to get_species by saying it returns the key, which separates it from list_species/count_species.

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 makes clear this is a name-based lookup that yields a handle for get_species, so an agent can infer the search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over list_species or count_species.

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