gbif_registry_get_collection

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned content categories, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It stops short of describing completeness, size, or error behavior for an unknown key.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the payload list is efficient. The final 'Essential for...' sentence is mild promotional filler that could be cut without losing selection signal.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by telling the agent what fields come back. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully documented key, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of failure-mode detail keeps it from a 5.

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 its source ('Get from gbif_registry_search_collections'). The description adds nothing about the key beyond what the schema states, 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 complete details for a specific scientific collection'), names the source registry (GRSciColl), and enumerates the payload (metadata, affiliation, holdings, contacts, preservation methods). This clearly separates it from the sibling gbif_registry_search_collections, which lists rather than retrieves a single record.

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 closing line ('Essential for understanding physical specimen repositories') gestures at when the tool is useful but names no alternative and no exclusion. It never says to obtain the key via gbif_registry_search_collections, nor how it relates to gbif_registry_get_institution. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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