list_taxa_by_rank

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, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of result volume, pagination, ordering, or return shape for what could be a very large listing. The read-only nature is only inferable from the word 'list'.

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, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. The trailing 'useful for browsing' clause is mildly filler but does add usage framing.

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 read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves out anything about result size or pagination, which matters for a 'list all' operation. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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% and both parameters carry enums with descriptions, so the schema already does the work. The description restates rank and the optional domain filter without adding format, default, or interaction semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (taxa at a given rank) with scope ('all taxa'). However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling list_phyla, which would be an obvious overlap when rank='phylum', nor from get_children.

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?

'Useful for browsing the taxonomy at any level' implies a browse/discovery use case but names no alternative and gives no when-not condition. An agent choosing between this, list_phyla, and get_children gets no routing help.

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