gbif_registry_dataset_document

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. The description adds behavior annotations do not: it enumerates the content of the returned document (description, contacts, coverage, methods, project info) and states the format is structured XML, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 before the return description and use case. Each sentence carries information, though the final 'Essential for...' clause leans slightly promotional rather than operational.

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 correctly compensates by describing what the returned XML contains. Safety is covered by annotations and the single parameter is schema-documented, leaving little an agent needs that is missing; a note on document size or that XML parsing is required would close the remaining 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% and the single 'key' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format, example, and return type. The description adds no new parameter meaning (no format hints, no alternative identifier types like DOI), so the baseline of 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 the EML (Ecological Metadata Language) metadata document for a dataset,' which is sharply distinct from the plain metadata returned by gbif_registry_get_dataset. It does not explicitly name that sibling or contrast the two, so an agent must infer the difference from the 'EML document' phrasing.

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 ('proper dataset citation,' 'understanding data collection methods,' 'accessing complete metadata'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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