bacdive_browse_taxa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination and a concrete page-size ceiling ('up to 50 taxa'), which is useful, but it omits return structure, ordering, and any read-only/auth context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and free of filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact (purpose, usage, page size).

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 simple one-parameter browse tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and pagination adequately. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it never describes what a returned taxon page contains or the ordering, leaving a meaningful return-value gap.

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 100% for the single page parameter, including default and minimum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the page-size fact ('up to 50 taxa'), which slightly enriches pagination semantics but does not document the parameter itself beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse all taxa in the BacDive database') with scope (all taxa, pagination). It implies a contrast with sibling search tools like bacdive_search_taxon but never names an alternative, so an agent gets no explicit routing cue.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as useful for 'systematically exploring the database or getting an overview of available strains', giving clear context for when to choose it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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