Get Taxon

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds: exact match quality tagging ('exact'), ranked name matches, lineage inclusion only for id lookups, and performance characteristics. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Approximately 120 words, well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, performance notes, and signature. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers behavioral aspects (output details for each input type), performance, and integration with sibling tools. No gaps remain; completeness is high.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: taxon parameter can be numeric id or name with example, and include_lineage only works for id lookups. This enriches understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool resolves organisms in UniProt taxonomy, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_proteins. It specifies two modes: numeric NCBI taxon id for full detail (scientific/common name, rank, parent, optional lineage) and name for candidate ids, with an example (9606). This is specific and actionable.

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 guides when to use: 'Use the resolved taxon id with find_proteins(organism_taxon=...).' It also warns about performance differences: numeric-id and common names are fast (~0 ms), uncommon names trigger a multi-second scan. This helps the agent decide based on input type.

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