gbif_species_suggest

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's only added behavioral signal is the autocomplete framing (partial-match, suggestion-style output); it says nothing about ranking, whether vernacular names are included, or result ordering.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the verb and purpose front-loaded; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is minimally viable. It is still thin on the one thing that matters here: how suggestions differ from gbif_species_search results, which is not covered by any structured field.

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 q/limit parameters are fully documented in the schema (min length, range, defaults, example). The description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Get species name suggestions") and the "autocomplete" framing signals partial/prefix lookup rather than full search. However, it never names or contrasts with close siblings like gbif_species_search, gbif_species_match, or gbif_species_parse_names, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 by "for autocomplete functionality," which tells the agent this is a typeahead-style lookup rather than a full search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool named, leaving the routing decision against gbif_species_search to inference.

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