itis_get_full_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not indicate that this is a read-only external lookup, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or what happens for an invalid/unknown TSN. 'Full record' hints at payload breadth but nothing about failure or access behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the qualifier follows. The parenthetical TSN expansion mildly duplicates the schema, keeping it just short of perfect.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate — 'full taxonomic record' gives a rough sense of the return, but it does not characterize the sections of a taxonomic record or error behavior. A little more would make it self-sufficient.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Taxonomic Serial Number.' The description expands the TSN acronym, but adds no format, validation, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (full taxonomic record) with the data source (USDA ITIS) and the exact identifier (TSN). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling itis_search_by_name, which works by name rather than TSN, though the description does not name that alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reliance on a TSN suggests this is the follow-up call after a name search, but the description never says when to prefer this over itis_search_by_name or other taxonomy tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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