gbif_literature_get

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description goes beyond that by disclosing the return payload (title, authors, abstract, journal, citation info, GBIF usage details), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then usage. No filler or repetition.

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 single-param read tool with full annotations and a rich param description, the entry is essentially complete; it explains the return payload in the absence of an output schema. Only edge cases like invalid-DOI behavior are unaddressed, which is minor.

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% and the parameter description already details DOI format, examples, and where to source DOIs, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no param-level syntax beyond it, matching the baseline.

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 ('Get complete metadata for a scientific publication by its DOI') and distinguishes itself from gbif_literature_search via the by-DOI lookup nature. Names the concrete fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it fetches.

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 get full details about a specific paper that used GBIF data' gives clear context for invocation and implicitly contrasts with search-style siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the search tool or stating exclusions, but the usage condition is unambiguous.

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