get_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Retrieve' implies a safe read, and the enumeration of returned fields (rank, status, etymology, classification, nomenclatural type, proposed_in) is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits any statement about permissions, errors for invalid IDs, or whether results are cached.

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, front-loaded with the operation and key, and the second sentence earns its place by previewing the return payload in the absence of an output schema. No filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers purpose, input key and the shape of the response, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of describing failure behavior or how an agent should obtain a valid name_id.

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 the single name_id parameter is documented with type, minimum and an example (49702), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the word 'numeric', matching the baseline 3 for a one-parameter tool.

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 ('Retrieve detailed information') and resource ('a specific name'), plus the lookup key ('by its numeric ID'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_names. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it falls just 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its numeric ID' signals the precondition that the agent must already hold an ID, which in turn implies the list_/search_ siblings are the way to obtain one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion.

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