bacdive_search_taxon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the operation type (free-text search, implying a read) and the return shape ('paginated list of matching taxa'). It omits any mention of result ranking, limits, or authentication, but for a simple public search it covers the essentials an agent needs.

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 sentences with a clean front-loaded action, then usage context, then return behavior, and no obvious padding. The 'This is useful for' phrasing is mildly filler, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the query semantics, illustrative examples, and the return format (paginated taxa list), which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result limits and ranking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'query' and 'page'. The description's free-text examples largely duplicate the schema's own examples and add no new syntax or formatting detail, making this the baseline 3.

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+resource ('free-text search across the BacDive taxon database') and the type of query it accepts. It is distinguishable from non-search siblings, but it does not differentiate itself from other search siblings like bacdive_search_strain or bacdive_search_by_dsm_number, so the agent must infer taxon-level vs strain-level scope.

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?

Gives concrete usage context with examples ('thermophilic', 'spore-forming', 'nitrogen-fixing') covering traits and morphology, which tells the agent when this search is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and sibling search tools.

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