Search Taxa by Scientific Name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns matching taxa with specific fields, supports partial-name matching, and identifies the data source (itis.gov, USGS public data). No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient: two sentences convey the operation, input, return fields, and the follow-up tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The trailing parenthetical '(itis.gov, USGS public data)' adds provenance but is mildly non-essential, keeping this just below a perfect 5.

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 read-only search tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to pass (scientific or partial name), what it returns (TSN and core fields), and the natural next step (get_full_record). No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema's query description already explains partial-name matching with examples ("Puma concolor", "Bison bison", or genus only "Ursus"). The description only restates 'partial name' without adding new parameter-level detail, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource (the ITIS database), and a precise scope (by scientific name or partial name), then lists the return fields (TSN, scientific name, author citation, kingdom). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling full_record tool by positioning the TSN as the key for that follow-up.

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 clearly routes the next step: 'the TSN can then be used with itistaxonomy.get_full_record for full classification detail,' which tells the agent when to continue to that sibling. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternate sibling search_common (common-name search) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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