gbif_occurrence_counts_by_publishing_country

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no note on response size, whether counts are exact or approximate, or any rate/caching behavior for a potentially large aggregation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and dimension, followed by usage and then the critical disambiguation. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation of return shape, yet the description never states what the result looks like (an array/pairs of publishing country and count). For a counts endpoint this is largely inferable, but explicitly naming the return shape would close the only real gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns an increment because the 'different from occurrence country' sentence disambiguates the meaning of the country filter relative to the grouping dimension, which is the single most error-prone aspect of this tool.

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?

Names a specific aggregation (occurrence counts) grouped by a precisely defined dimension (country of the publishing organization). The final sentence explicitly distinguishes it from occurrence country, which is the most likely confusion with the sibling gbif_occurrence_counts_by_country.

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 three concrete use cases (provider distribution, collaboration opportunities, global participation) and an explicit contrast with the collection-country alternative. It stops short of stating when an agent should prefer this over gbif_occurrence_counts_by_publishing_org or gbif_occurrence_counts_by_dataset, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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