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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('Genus species Author, Year') and the fact that only confirmed scientific names are returned. It does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves some details (e.g., pagination or matching behavior) to the output 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 concise (four short sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: what the tool does, what it is useful for, what it returns, and how to use it next. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter search tool with a documented input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the purpose, use cases, return shape, and follow-up tool. It gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly within its sibling set.

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 input schema already has full coverage (100%) for the single 'name' parameter, including examples and the full/partial binomial guidance. The main description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond referring to a 'taxonomic query', so the baseline of 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 action ('Search') and the specific resource (Biodiversity Heritage Library taxonomic names), and specifies the output (confirmed name strings with author and year). It also names bhl.literature.search as the downstream complementary tool, distinguishing this name-search from literature-focused siblings.

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 gives concrete use cases ('historical name variants, author citations, and subspecies/variety designations') and explicit routing guidance: use this tool to find names, then use bhl.literature.search with the confirmed name to locate publications. This clearly separates when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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