taxon_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It says the tool gets a combined record, but it does not disclose matching behavior, assumed name formats, handling of unresolved or non-current names, or any limitations. This is thin for an unannotated tool.

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 wasted words and stays focused on the primary action and data focus. It is front-loaded and readable.

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 low-complexity, and the output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return shape in detail. However, the absence of parameter guidance and sibling differentiation leaves enough gaps that this is only minimally complete for a taxon-focused API with many related tools.

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?

There is one required parameter, scientific_name, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the format, canonical requirements, or accepted name behavior for scientific_name, so it adds little meaning beyond the parameter label.

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 action and resource: getting a combined species record with current combination, epithet, and monograph data. It is more specific than just repeating the tool name, and the mention of combined data helps separate it from search/resolve-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name or exclude alternate tools.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as resolve_taxon, search_taxa, name_history, or classification. The description gives a purpose but no conditions, exclusions, or alternate tool recommendations.

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