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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: record fields, coverage of ocean environments, the CC BY 4.0 license, and the fact that no authentication is required. This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by filters, record contents, coverage, and data provenance. Every sentence carries 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?

For a search tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: data source, licensing, auth requirements, geographic scope, and what fields are returned. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description summarizes filters (scientific name, AphiaID, coordinates with radius, year range) that directly map to the schema parameters. It adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('100M+ marine species occurrence records in OBIS'), and enumerates the main filtering dimensions. It distinguishes itself from related biodiversity tools by naming the dataset and the scope of the data.

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool does and which filters are available, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over sibling tools (e.g., gbif, inaturalist). The coverage and licensing details help an agent decide, yet no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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