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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists the full Darwin Core record fields returned and explicitly explains the ABSENT occurrenceStatus semantic. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: the first states purpose, the second lists contents, the third gives a critical interpretation warning. No filler, no repetition, and all information is actionable. The most important constraint (check occurrenceStatus) is front-loaded after the purpose.

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-record fetch with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential workflow (search → get), the return envelope, and the classification nuance. Minor omissions like error behavior or rate limits are not critical for this simple read operation, so it's nearly complete.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) of the single parameter occurrenceKey with the description 'GBIF occurrence key from gbif_search_occurrences results.' The tool description repeats this same information without adding new syntax, format, or edge-case details. Since the schema carries the load, the 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 opens with a clear and specific verb-resource pair: 'Fetch a single occurrence record by its GBIF occurrence key.' It enumerates exactly what the record contains (coordinates, GADM levels, dates, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling getters like gbif_get_dataset or gbif_get_species. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It provides direct workflow guidance: 'Use the occurrence key from gbif_search_occurrences results' ties it to the search step. It also warns to check occurrenceStatus and explains the meaning of ABSENT, which is critical for correct interpretation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but given the tool is the only occurrence getter and has a distinct role, this is adequate.

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