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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific return content beyond what annotations provide, such as classification hierarchy and synonyms, enhancing behavioral understanding.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the main action and quickly details return fields and source.

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 simple parameter set (1 required integer), complete annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated in context signals), the description covers all needed context: what it does, what it returns, and the data source.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already defines taxon_key as 'GBIF taxon key (numeric ID from species search results)'. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond that, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'full taxonomic profile', and the input 'by GBIF taxon key'. It lists specific return fields (classification hierarchy, vernacular names, synonyms, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like species_search or occurrences.

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 after obtaining a taxon key (likely from a search tool) and specifies the data source (GBIF backbone taxonomy). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear for an agent.

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