gbif_literature_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination behavior, or result-size limits, so it neither exceeds nor contradicts the annotations.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence ('peer-reviewed publications, reports, and papers') is somewhat redundant with the first and could be tightened, but overall it is short and readable.

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 nine-parameter read-only search tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what the tool does and why it is useful. It omits any hint of return shape or default pagination behavior, but those are largely inferable from the schema.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters (q, year, limit, offset, topics, openAccess, peerReview, gbifDatasetKey, publishingOrganizationKey) in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search scientific literature that cites GBIF data', elaborated with 'peer-reviewed publications, reports, and papers that used GBIF-mediated data'. This distinguishes it well from the occurrence/registry siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with its closest sibling gbif_literature_get.

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?

The third sentence gives usage motivation ('understanding data impact, finding research examples, tracking research trends'), which implies relevance context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of gbif_literature_get as the single-record alternative, and no noted prerequisites.

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