search_taxa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (matching names with rank, status, and LPSN URL) and existence of fuzzy matching, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or how many results are returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return values and usage. The trailing bare URL is largely redundant given the return-value sentence already mentions LPSN URLs, but overall very little waste.

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 low-complexity, read-only two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is adequate, though it lacks result-count, pagination, or ambiguity-handling details an agent might need.

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%, with both query and exact fully documented in-schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's "scientific name or partial name" phrasing only restates the query parameter without adding format constraints or examples beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: search the LPSN database for prokaryotic names (bacteria and archaea), returning names with rank, status, and URL. That is clearly distinct from get_taxon_detail or browse_by_rank in spirit, but no sibling tool is named explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

"Use this tool to find taxa by scientific name or partial name" states a use case, but gives no when-not-to-use guidance and never points to get_taxon_detail or browse_by_rank as the follow-up or alternative path. Usage is implied rather than fully directed.

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