taxonomic_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It signals a read-only retrieval through 'Get' and discloses that LDL reference IDs are only included 'where available,' which is a useful data-completeness caveat. It does not mention failure modes, paging, or other operational behavior.

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 compact sentence communicates action, resource, scope, and the caveat about LDL IDs. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, and return details need not be restated. However, it omits any comparison with the overlapping bibliography sibling and leaves usage context implicit, so an agent may not know when this citation tool is preferred.

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%, and the description only loosely maps the parameter to 'a taxon.' It does not specify whether scientific_name expects a binomial, with or without authorship, or exact-match handling. The single parameter's title is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('nomenclatural/taxonomic citations for a taxon'), and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'with LDL reference IDs where available.' It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bibliography or name_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instead of siblings such as bibliography, name_history, or taxon_record. The 'where available' caveat hints at data availability, but no selection conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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