bio.species

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and return fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, error handling, or whether it returns single/multiple results.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence enumerates capabilities, the second adds a key feature (fuzzy matching). Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers what is returned and a key behavior (fuzzy matching). Lacks mention of multiple matches or error cases (e.g., unknown species), but is largely complete.

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 'name' has schema coverage of 100% with a clear description. The tool description adds value by specifying that it accepts both scientific and common names and fuzzy-matches misspellings, going beyond the schema.

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 tool resolves organism names to the GBIF taxonomic backbone, listing specific outputs like accepted name, lineage, vernacular names, occurrence count, and link. It distinguishes from siblings like bio.gene and bio.protein by focusing on species taxonomy.

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 implies when to use by saying 'resolve any organism', and the sibling context shows differentiation from other biological tools. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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