Autocomplete Taxa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ('a list of matching name suggestions') and illustrates matching behavior with the 'prim' -> 'primates', 'primatiformes' example, which usefully implies prefix-style matching. It omits whether the call is read-only, any result limits, and matching/case semantics, which the schema only hints at.

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 with zero waste: purpose first, usage context second, output and concrete example last. Every sentence contributes and nothing is repeated.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover the return value, which it does with a concrete example. For a simple single-parameter autocomplete this is nearly sufficient; only edge details like result caps or case handling are absent.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'query' fully, including the lower-case recommendation and examples. The description's example pairs an input with sample outputs, adding minor value but no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get autocomplete suggestions for taxonomic names') with the input modality (partial text) and the output (list of matching name suggestions). It also distinguishes its use case from the heavier sibling search_taxa by framing it as something to do 'before doing a full search'.

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?

Gives a clear context for use: discovering available taxa in PhyloPic before a full search. However, it never names search_taxa as the alternative or states when autocomplete is the wrong choice (e.g., exact lookups or large result sets), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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