gbif_occurrence_get

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 low. Because there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned content (verbatim fields, interpretation history, media, quality issues) is genuinely useful behavioral context that tells the agent what data it will receive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by expanding what 'complete details' includes.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description plus schema is nearly complete; the content enumeration compensates for the missing output schema. Only the routing against sibling lookup tools (search vs. verbatim vs. this) is left 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'key' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format, example and provenance ('found from search results'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 (Get) and resource (a single occurrence record) and enumerates the payload categories: verbatim fields, interpretation history, media, data quality issues. This clearly separates it from gbif_occurrence_search/count (bulk) and gbif_occurrence_verbatim, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to call this versus gbif_occurrence_search or gbif_occurrence_verbatim, nor any prerequisite such as needing a key obtained from a prior search (that hint lives only in the schema). Usage is only inferable from the word 'single'.

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