phylogeny

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what 'citations/records' includes, or any side effects or limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero fluff. It is concise and to the point, making efficient use of the character budget.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of data nature, pagination, or limitations. Given no annotations, more context about behavior would be expected, but the low complexity keeps it at a minimally adequate level.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that scientific_name refers to the taxon, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., binomial nomenclature) or any constraints. The parameter name already conveys this, so the added value is minimal.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('LDL phylogenetic citations/records') tied to a taxon. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'phylogenetic' content, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with taxonomic_references or bibliography, which are close alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like taxonomic_references or bibliography. The description implies it's for phylogenetic data but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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