resolve_taxon

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 indicates a read-like resolution ('resolve') but does not explicitly state side effects, failure behavior for unrecognized names, or the impact of the include_history parameter. The description does not disclose whether the operation is purely read-only or if it modifies state.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids filler, achieving maximum conciseness for the information it does convey.

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?

For a tool with two parameters (one required, one boolean with a default), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the include_history parameter, which is a significant behavioral control, nor does it address error handling or response structure (despite an output schema being present, the description adds no context on what the resolved taxon looks like). The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in correct usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies that scientific_name is the name to resolve, but it completely ignores the include_history parameter. No meaning is added for that boolean beyond what the schema's title and default suggest. The description fails to explain the purpose or effect of include_history.

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 specific verb ('resolve'), a resource ('Neuropterida scientific name'), and an outcome ('LDL's current taxon and identifiers'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like batch_resolve (which likely resolves many names) and search_taxa (which suggests broader searching) by focusing on resolution of a single name to the current taxon.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which another sibling (e.g., batch_resolve, name_history, search_taxa) would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'resolve'.

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