gbif_maps_get_vector_tile_url

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what vector tiles enable (client-side styling, interactivity, dynamic rendering), but it does not add behavioral details beyond annotations, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly the generated URL returns.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses three sentences without excessive length. The second and third sentences are somewhat promotional but still useful for understanding intended use, so it is concise overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately conveys that the tool generates a URL and describes its format and intended use. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents parameters, leaving only minor gaps such as how the returned URL should be used or whether any authentication is required.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the input schema, including tile coordinates, year filtering, style names, country codes, taxon keys, dataset keys, and basis of record. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Generate) and resource (URL for occurrence vector tiles) and specifies the format (Mapbox Vector Tile / MVT). It clearly distinguishes this from a raster tile tool by naming the vector format, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling gbif_maps_get_raster_tile_url or gbif_maps_get_tile_url.

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?

It gives implied usage context by naming ideal client libraries (Mapbox GL JS, Leaflet with vector tile plugins, OpenLayers), which helps an agent understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it route the agent between this, the raster tile tool, or the generic tile URL tool.

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