search_taxonomy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results are taxonomy ids and that leaf entries are preferable, but says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs partial word match), result limits, or whether multiple matches are returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the one piece of selection advice that matters. No padding or restated boilerplate.

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 single-parameter lookup with annotations covering read semantics and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context to call it correctly and interpret results as category ids. A note on how broad the word matching is would close the remaining gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'query' as 'Words to match in the category path.' The description's example ('wall clock') adds a concrete sense of expected input granularity but no syntax or formatting rules beyond the schema.

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 and resource: find seller taxonomy ids (categories) by words, with a concrete example query ('wall clock') and the clarifying parenthetical that these are categories. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the listing/inventory siblings, none of which deal in taxonomy lookup, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 line 'Prefer leaf entries' is real downstream guidance about which returned ids to use, which implies the tool feeds category selection in listing operations. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus another tool, and no exclusion or prerequisite noted.

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