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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying return fields (coordinates, date, institution, basis of record) and the scale (2.5B+ records, institutional sources). No contradiction, and the added context is relevant beyond the 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 two sentences, 41 words, front-loaded with the core action and parameters. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and detailed annotations, the description covers the tool's return fields, source, and filtering capabilities. It is complete for a read-only search tool, though it could mention pagination behavior (but limit param is in schema).

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 is fully described (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by ISO country code, which adds minimal context. No extra details on constraints or defaults beyond the schema.

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 it searches species occurrence records by taxon, country, and year, and lists return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like gbif.biodiversity.species_search (species-level) and gbif.biodiversity.occurrence_count (counts), but does not explicitly differentiate, keeping it at 4.

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 implies usage for retrieving occurrence records but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like gbif.biodiversity.occurrence_count or gbif.biodiversity.species_details. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so it scores 3.

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