gbif_occurrence_counts_by_country

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait, 'Fast statistics endpoint,' signaling lower cost/latency than a full search, plus a brief note on the return shape. It omits pagination/limits, but for a stats endpoint this is a modest gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and result, followed by scope, then rationale. Four short sentences, mostly earning their place. The 'Essential for...' clause leans slightly promotional but still conveys legitimate analysis use cases.

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?

Five optional filters, full schema coverage, and a complete safety annotation set; no output schema is present, so the description's one-line note on the return shape ('counts per country') is sufficient. Only pagination/size limits and the publishing-country distinction are unaddressed.

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 five filters are documented in the schema with examples (year range, taxonKey example, dataset, basisOfRecord, hasCoordinate). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is appropriate given the schema does the work — 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: 'Get occurrence counts broken down by country.' The geographic-distribution framing makes clear this is country-of-occurrence, not publishing country. However, it never names or contrasts with the very close sibling gbif_occurrence_counts_by_publishing_country, so disambiguation is left to the agent.

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?

Gives use cases ('understanding species ranges, identifying data gaps by region, prioritizing conservation efforts') but these are motivations rather than when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, and the near-identical publishing-country sibling is not addressed.

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