browse_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. It discloses that it returns a list of all taxa at a rank (implying potentially very large result sets), but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, ordering, result caps, or rate limits.

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 primary action and scope, with the optional filter trailing. The enumerated rank list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but serves as a quick reference.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both parameters and the kind of result. It is still missing scale/pagination or result-limit guidance, which matters given 'all taxa' at ranks like domain.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the rank values and mentions the optional letter filter, which is redundant with the schema; notably its parenthetical rank list omits 'kingdom', which the schema enum includes.

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 (browse) and resource (all taxa at a given taxonomic rank on LPSN), and scopes it precisely with the rank enumeration. It is distinguishable from search_taxa and get_taxon_detail, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you want to enumerate taxa at a rank rather than look up a specific one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when search_taxa would be preferable, and no prerequisites stated.

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