distribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (a summary and records) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'LDL' is unexplained, and no details about the nature of the geographic records are given.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks any structural elements like examples or caveats, but for its length it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered by the schema. The description is adequate for a simple fetch operation but lacks context on when to use it, what 'LDL' stands for, and any edge cases. It is minimal but not wholly inadequate, given the low complexity and presence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0% (the parameter has no description in the schema), so the description must compensate. It merely says 'for a taxon', which restates the obvious from the parameter name 'scientific_name'. It adds no information about format, constraints, or how the parameter is used. The description fails to add any semantic value 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's action ('Get') and resource ('LDL distribution summary and cited geographic records') for a given taxon. It is specific and distinguishable from siblings by its focus on distribution data, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other taxon-related tools like 'taxon_record' or 'classification'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, typical use cases, or exclusions. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description does not help an agent choose this one over them.

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