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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: the returned metadata fields, the fact that no authentication is required, and the source/licensing condition (free, CC BY 4.0). This is sufficient for a simple read-only search tool.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by output and use-case context. It is reasonably concise, though the network-scale statistic ('4,200+ datasets from 900+ institutions') is not strictly necessary for a caller deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 fully documented parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: what can be filtered, what is returned, why it is useful, and the access/licensing constraints. There are no major gaps.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description's 'by species name or geographic area' adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 specific verb and resource: 'Find marine biodiversity datasets in the OBIS network by species name or geographic area.' It then clarifies the return type (dataset metadata) and use cases, which distinguishes it from sibling OBIS tools that return occurrences, taxa, or checklists.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: 'discovering primary data sources, citing specific surveys, and understanding data provenance for a species or region.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over occurrence_search, taxon_search, or checklist.

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