Resolve External Identifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that resolution is approximate ("closest matching") rather than exact, which is a real behavioral trait an agent needs. However, it says nothing about failure behavior (no match), whether one or many nodes are returned, or any auth/rate considerations.

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, then an example, then the prerequisite. The middle example sentence partially restates the first sentence's intent, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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, so the description should be compensating more than it does: it never describes what a resolved result looks like (single node? ranked candidates?) or what happens when nothing matches. For a lookup/resolution tool whose entire value is the returned mapping, that is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions with examples, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's GBIF/NCBI examples broadly reinforce the authority+namespace+object_id framing but add no syntax, format, or constraint 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 ('resolve') and resource ('external taxonomic database identifier' → 'PhyloPic phylogenetic node'), and the example pair (GBIF species key, NCBI taxon ID) makes the transformation concrete. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_node, which resolves internal IDs, and list_namespaces, which enumerates authorities.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to a prerequisite sibling: "Use 'list_namespaces' first to see available authorities and namespaces." That is a genuine when-to-use-A-before-B instruction. It does not state when-not to use this tool or what to do if an exact node match is not needed, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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