gbif_registry_search_installations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds conceptual context about what IPTs are but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or return shape, so it adds only modest value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences with the core verb-resource pairing front-loaded and zero filler; every sentence (including the IPT definition) earns its place by aiding selection.

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 read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and domain context adequately. It stops short of describing result structure or paging semantics, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, with q, type, limit, and offset each fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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") and resource ("IPT installations") and explicitly disambiguates from siblings searching organizations, networks, datasets, and collections. It even defines what an IPT is, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

"Use to find technical infrastructure and data hosting platforms" gives a use context, but no when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling gbif_registry_get_installation (lookup by key) that would let an agent distinguish search from retrieval.

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