gbif_species_detail

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 adds that the return contains 'full taxonomy details,' which gives some output scope, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid keys, rate limits, or completeness of taxonomic ranks.

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 wasted words. It communicates the operation, resource, and selector immediately.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the return scope ('full taxonomy details'), though it could briefly enumerate the taxonomic ranks returned to remove any ambiguity.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as a numeric GBIF taxon key. The description adds only 'by key,' which restates the schema rather than adding format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the work.

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 has a clear verb ('Get'), resource ('full taxonomy details for a GBIF species'), and lookup method ('by key'), which distinguishes it from gbif_search_species. It does not explicitly name the sibling or state that this is the key-based detail endpoint, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 only implied: 'by key' suggests this is appropriate when a GBIF taxon key is already known. There is no explicit guidance on when to use gbif_search_species instead, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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