type_info

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does identify the concrete return contents and the georeferenced-coordinate aspect, but it does not explain optional behavior, such as what changes when include_coordinates is false, nor any error or data-source considerations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds content by listing the three returned components, making the description efficient and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the core purpose is present, and the schema covers required inputs. However, the completely undocumented parameters and lack of sibling differentiation leave an agent to infer when to use this tool and how the optional coordinate boolean behaves.

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 for the input schema's lack of explanations. It mentions type-locality coordinates, but it never names or clarifies scientific_name or include_coordinates, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the property names and the boolean default.

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 opens with 'Get' and names a specific resource: 'primary type summary, type-specimen details, and georeferenced type-locality coordinates.' This is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as taxon_record or resolve_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?

No guidance is given on when to call type_info instead of sibling tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The intended use case must be inferred from the tool name and description.

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