search_by_scientific_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level, without mentioning rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what the search returns (e.g., partial matches, exact matches). This is inadequate for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., taxonomic details, match types), error handling, or limitations. For a search tool with three parameters and multiple sibling alternatives, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify search behavior like case sensitivity or wildcard support). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('organisms by their scientific name in ITIS database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_by_vernacular_name' or 'search_itis', which appear to be related search functions in the same database.

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 like 'search_by_vernacular_name', 'search_by_kingdom', or 'search_itis'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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