get_taxonomy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a lookup (implying a read operation) and lists the types of data returned (species codes, scientific names, families). However, it does not disclose behavior when the species parameter is omitted, nor does it mention any potential limitations or return format specifics.

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 concise and well-structured: two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and give a key usage note. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and gives a usage hint. It does not specify the default behavior when no species is provided, but the schema and clear naming make the tool selectable and invocable. The absence of an output schema is somewhat mitigated by listing the content types returned.

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 already fully describes both parameters (locale and species) with examples and descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only a minor usage hint for the species parameter, providing no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 states the tool's function: 'Look up bird taxonomy — species codes, scientific names, families.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('bird taxonomy'), and this is distinct from sibling tools that focus on observations, hotspots, and life lists.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'Use ''species'' param to look up specific species codes.' This indicates when to use the species parameter, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. The context is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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