search_by_tsn

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 states this is a search operation but doesn't describe what kind of results to expect, whether it's paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter search tool and gets straight to the point.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe what the search returns (organism details? taxonomy hierarchy? just existence?), nor does it address common search considerations like partial matches, case sensitivity, or error handling for invalid TSNs.

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 the single parameter 'tsn' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (that it searches by TSN), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Search for organisms') and the resource ('by their Taxonomic Serial Number (TSN) in ITIS database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'search_by_scientific_name' or 'search_itis'), which would require a 5.

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. With multiple search-related sibling tools available, there's no indication of when TSN-based searching is appropriate versus other search methods like by name, kingdom, or rank.

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