gbif_occurrence_verbatim

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the record is the publisher's raw submission and contains full Darwin Core fields with URIs. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the record is before the detail about containing original Darwin Core fields.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so reasonably by stating the record is the unprocessed publisher submission with all original Darwin Core fields and full URIs. It could say more about the exact payload shape, but it is sufficient for a single-key read-only tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the schema already documents 'key' thoroughly (type, uniqueness, example, and purpose). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (the original, unprocessed occurrence record as provided by the publisher) and adds a distinguishing scope qualifier: 'before GBIF interpretation.' This lets an agent separate it conceptually from the interpreted-record sibling, though it never names gbif_occurrence_get explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for retrieving publisher-original data instead of interpreted data, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The contrast with GBIF interpretation is the only routing signal.

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