get_genomes_for_taxon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about result ordering, truncation behavior, pagination, or that results are capped by the limit parameter. For a listing tool whose default silently returns only 100 IDs, that silence is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and a single illustrative clause that earns its place by clarifying taxonomic scope. No filler.

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 two-parameter lookup this is largely adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least indicate what is returned (genome IDs/accessions) and how the limit interacts with large taxa. The current text leaves that to the schema's terse parameter description.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description's taxon examples ('Enterobacteriaceae', 'Bacillota') reinforce the expected value format but add little beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Get all genome assemblies classified under a given taxonomic group') and grounds it with concrete examples at family and phylum rank. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the species-level sibling, but never names get_genomes_for_species or other alternatives explicitly, so it falls 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?

The examples ('family Enterobacteriaceae or phylum Bacillota') imply the intended granularity of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_genomes_for_species or get_taxon_summary. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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