gbif_search_species

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so safety and repeatability are covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the name-matching scope; it says nothing about fuzzy matching, ranking, or how many/which taxa come back.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 two-parameter, annotation-rich, read-only name search with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it matches on; an agent can invoke it correctly without more. Adding return-shape detail would be nice but is not required here.

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 coverage is 100% – the schema documents 'query' as the species name and 'limit' with default 10 / max 50. The description only restates that matching is by name, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Search') and resource ('GBIF biodiversity species') plus the matching key ('by name'), so the operation is clear. It stops short of differentiating from its sibling gbif_species_detail, leaving the search-vs-fetch-record distinction to be inferred from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gbif_species_detail or gbif_occurrences, and no mention of what a search yields (taxon keys) or that those keys feed the detail tool. The agent must guess the pipeline.

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