Search Taxa by Common Name

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that results include the TSN and the language of the common name, and by identifying the data source (itis.gov, USGS public data). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and includes only useful details: search scope, partial matching, result fields, and data provenance. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation information: what is searched, how results are identified, and the source. It could briefly mention the scientific-name sibling alternative, but this is not necessary for correct invocation.

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% coverage for the single required query parameter, including examples and the notion of partial-name search. The description largely reiterates the same meaning rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource (the ITIS database), and narrows the scope to common/vernacular names or partial names. It also states what is returned (matching taxa with TSN and language of the common name). The title and description clearly differentiate this from sibling science.itistaxonomy.search_scientific and full_record tools.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user has a common or vernacular name, including partial names. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_scientific or state exclusions, but the intended use is strongly implied by the resource and field focus.

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