gbif_occurrence_counts_by_taxon

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real behavior: results are sorted most-frequent-first and truncated to the top 100, plus a note that it is a fast statistics endpoint. That ordering/cap disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 core action and result shape, which is good, but the second and third sentences restate the same idea three ways ('taxonomic composition analysis', 'biodiversity patterns', 'identifying dominant species', 'taxonomic coverage') and 'Fast statistics for ecological analysis' is filler. It could lose a third of its length with no information loss.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (per-species counts, sorted, capped at 100). Filters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is whether the endpoint applies implicit defaults or how a very large higher taxon is handled, but nothing critical to a correct call is absent.

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% with 5 parameters, so the schema already documents year, country, datasetKey, hasCoordinate, and gives a taxonKey example. The description adds only the framing that counts are broken down by the species under the supplied taxon; no format, range, or default semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get counts), resource (occurrences), and the breakdown dimension (species / speciesKey) that separates it from sibling count tools like gbif_occurrence_count and gbif_occurrence_counts_by_country. The scoping phrase 'within the filtered taxon' makes the aggregation level unambiguous.

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 implied analytical contexts ('biodiversity patterns', 'dominant species') but never states when to choose this over gbif_occurrence_count or the other counts_by_* siblings, nor any prerequisite for taxonKey. Usage is inferable from the name and description but not directed.

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