batch_literature_distribution_seed

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a batch cap ('up to 50') but never explains what behavior occurs beyond that limit (error vs. truncation), what a 'seed' actually is, or whether any lookup/rate behavior is involved. The term 'seeds' is domain jargon left undefined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope constraint is placed clearly. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the opaque 'seed' concept unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a batch tool with a fully undocumented parameter and an undefined core concept ('seeds'), the description is only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning: the names are Neuropterida taxa and the list is capped at 50. It still does not say whether names must be resolved/valid or what format (e.g., 'Genus species') they should take.

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?

Clear verb ('Build'), a specific resource ('literature-distribution extraction seeds'), and a bounded scope ('up to 50 Neuropterida names'). The 'batch'/count framing implicitly separates it from the singular sibling literature_distribution_seed, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the obvious sibling literature_distribution_seed for single-name work and distribution_sources for provenance. The agent can infer this is for multiple names, but nothing states prerequisites or when to prefer this over the singular tool.

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