get_taxon_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the data source (LPSN) and the two accepted input forms, and implies a read-only retrieval. It does not say what happens for an unknown or ambiguous name (error vs. suggestions), whether the lookup is exact-match, or any rate/latency characteristics.

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 sentences, no filler: the capability and its content coverage come first, the input constraint follows. Nothing is redundant enough to remove.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, enumerating the returned fields largely substitutes for a return-value spec. The remaining gap is failure/ambiguity behavior when a name does not resolve uniquely.

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% for the single name_or_url parameter, so the schema already documents both accepted forms and supplies the 'Escherichia coli' example. The description's sentence about name-or-URL restates the schema rather than adding format or validation detail, so the 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 and resource ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific prokaryotic taxon from LPSN') and enumerates the returned content (etymology, type strain, status, synonyms, basonyms, parent/child taxa, notes, references), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_classification or get_nomenclature_info. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 only guidance is 'Provide either a scientific name or a full LPSN URL,' which is input formatting, not when-to-use. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_taxa, get_classification_info, or get_text_page, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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