gbif_maps_get_raster_tile_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that tiles are pre-rendered and fast to serve, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or caching.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then characteristics. No filler, though the 'fast rendering' and 'quick visualization' points overlap slightly.

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?

The tool returns a URL, which the description explicitly names as the output, so no output schema is needed. Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling routing remains thin.

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 every parameter (x/y/z, style, scale, year, country, taxonKey) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'various color schemes' duplicates the style parameter docs without adding syntax or constraints. Baseline 3.

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: 'Generate URL for pre-rendered PNG density map tiles.' The PNG/raster nature clearly separates it in kind from the vector-tile sibling, even though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

'Fast rendering, ideal for simple map displays. Use for quick visualization without client-side rendering overhead' implies the usage context but never states when to prefer this over gbif_maps_get_tile_url or gbif_maps_get_vector_tile_url, nor any exclusions.

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