search_by_kingdom

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 mentions 'search' but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of organisms, taxonomic details), whether it's paginated (though the schema hints at this), error handling, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part of the sentence contributing essential information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. With schema coverage at 100%, the input parameters are well-documented, but the overall context remains incomplete for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (kingdom, rows, start) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Search for organisms within a specific kingdom in ITIS database.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('organisms'), and scope ('within a specific kingdom in ITIS database'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_by_rank' or 'search_itis', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 sibling tools like 'search_by_rank' or 'search_itis', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied (searching by kingdom), but no explicit usage guidelines are provided.

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