gbif_registry_search_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are fully covered structurally. The description contributes domain context (what networks are) but says nothing extra about result format or pagination semantics beyond what the schema's limit/offset descriptions give. Adequate, not rich.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose first, domain explanation second. No wasted clauses. The parenthetical example list is slightly long but earns its place by disambiguating the term 'network'.

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, open-world search tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the definition supplies what the structured fields cannot: the meaning of 'network'. No output schema exists, but for a list endpoint the return shape is predictable. Minor gap: no note on pagination behavior when results exceed limit.

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%, so all four parameters (q, limit, offset, identifier) are documented in the schema with examples and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search for dataset networks in GBIF', and defines what a network is with concrete examples (eBird, iNaturalist, OBIS). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gbif_registry_get_network or gbif_registry_search_organizations, but the resource noun 'networks' is clear enough to route by.

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 discover thematic data collections and partnerships' implies the browse/discovery use case but names no alternatives and gives no when-not condition. An agent can infer it should use get_network for a single known network, but the description never says so.

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