uniprot_taxonomy_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description does not contradict but also does not elaborate. The description only states what it does (search and return IDs) but omits behavioral details like case-insensitivity, partial matching, or response format beyond 'returns taxonomy IDs'. For a search tool, knowing the matching behavior is important.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While it is not verbose, it could be expanded slightly to cover parameters without losing conciseness. The structure is acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description only addresses the purpose and one implicit parameter. It does not explain the 'size' and 'response_format' parameters, nor the structure of the output (though output schema exists). Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only implicitly explains the 'query' parameter (organism name) but does not explain 'size' (number of results) or 'response_format' (markdown default). The description adds no semantic value for two out of three parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: searching UniProt taxonomy by organism name and returning taxonomy IDs. The verb 'Search' and resource 'UniProt taxonomy' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings which are other search tools (e.g., search_citations) by focusing on taxonomy.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when it is appropriate (e.g., for finding taxonomy IDs given an organism name) or when not to use it (e.g., for detailed taxonomy hierarchy). Sibling tools like 'uniprot_search' might also be relevant, but no differentiation is given.

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