gbif_occurrence_counts_by_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape ('dataset UUIDs with counts'), which is genuine value, but omits any result-set limits, ranking behavior, or pagination, which matter for a faceted count endpoint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and closed with the return type. The middle sentence is a list of use cases that earns its place for routing, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 does supply the return shape and the tool has no required parameters, so an agent can call it correctly. It stops short of describing result volume, ordering, or truncation behavior, which is the remaining gap for a count/facet tool.

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 parameters (year, country, taxonKey, basisOfRecord, hasCoordinate) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or filter-interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 contributing dataset.' The 'by dataset' dimension clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gbif_occurrence_counts_by_year, by_country, and by_basis_of_record without needing to read any schema.

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 concrete usage contexts: 'data attribution, understanding data sources, finding primary datasets for a taxon/region, and acknowledging data providers.' However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one (e.g., when you only need a total count).

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