gbif_occurrence_download_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation detail about the readiness lifecycle and return payload (status, link, record count, file size).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return payload; no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, filling that gap. It stops short of describing non-ready states (e.g., pending/failed) or retry guidance, which would complete the polling picture.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already states it is the key returned from gbif_occurrence_download_request. The description repeats rather than extends this, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb ('Check the status and retrieve metadata') and resource ('occurrence download request'), and clearly contrasts with the sibling gbif_occurrence_download_request by focusing on status retrieval rather than initiating a download.

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 'when ready' phrasing implies this is polled after a download request, and the downloadKey param references gbif_occurrence_download_request, so the workflow context is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives or how often to poll.

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