search_taxonomy_by_name

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 fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if no matches are found, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any performance characteristics. The description merely restates the name without adding operational context.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to use its limited space to provide any useful context about the tool's behavior, constraints, or differentiation from siblings. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description lacks.

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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'search' entails, what results look like, how to interpret them, or when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (which include various retrieval and mapping operations), this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Taxonomy name to search'. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify search semantics like case sensitivity, partial matching, or examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search taxonomy by name' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'search' and resource 'taxonomy' but doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_ontology_by_name' or explain what 'search' means in this context (e.g., exact match, partial match, fuzzy search).

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 'get_taxonomy_by_id' (which appears to retrieve by ID rather than name) or 'search_ontology_by_name' (which searches a different resource), nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for this search operation.

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