bio.species

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It describes the core behavior and fuzzy matching but does not mention limitations like rate limits, data freshness, or handling of multiple matches. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action and outputs. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Without an output schema, the description lists key outputs. It is fairly complete for a simple resolution tool, though it could mention handling of multiple matches or homonyms.

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 schema has one parameter with a basic description. The tool description adds that the name can be scientific or common and that the tool fuzzy-matches misspellings, enriching the parameter semantics 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 (accepted name, lineage, vernacular names, occurrence count, link) and mentioning fuzzy matching. This distinguishes it from siblings like bio.gene and bio.protein.

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 usage for species resolution but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given distinct siblings, the purpose is clear, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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