get_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned hierarchy. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to clarity. There's no waste or 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?

Given the complexity of a taxonomic hierarchy tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structure, fields), potential limitations, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly defines the 'tsn' parameter. It implies the parameter is required but doesn't provide additional context like TSN format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('complete taxonomic hierarchy') with a specific input requirement ('for a given TSN'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_by_tsn' by focusing on hierarchy retrieval rather than search, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more differentiated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose it over siblings like 'search_by_tsn' or 'explore_taxonomy', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context.

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