literature_distribution_seed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Build ... seed' implies a read/compilation operation, but it never states that it does not mutate data, whether it performs external literature lookups, or how expensive/cached the operation is.

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?

One tight sentence with the deliverable front-loaded and the components enumerated immediately after. It wastes no words, though the compression contributes to the unexplained-jargon problem.

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 literature-extraction tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the description omits usage routing, behavior, and the meaning of 'LDL', leaving meaningful gaps.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does indicate the input is a 'taxon', mapping to scientific_name, but adds no format, authorship, or resolution guidance (e.g., accepted name vs. synonym).

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 names a concrete deliverable (a literature-extraction seed) and enumerates its components: taxon, type locality/coordinates, and cited distribution sources/pages. That is far more specific than a restatement, though the term 'LDL' is unexplained jargon that an agent must guess at.

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 statement of when to use this versus the sibling batch_literature_distribution_seed, distribution_sources, distribution, or type_info. The description implies it is a literature-oriented alternative to distribution lookups but never says so, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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