gbif_registry_get_dataset

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful payload context by enumerating what comes back (title, contacts, endpoints, coverage, citation), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or errors.

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, zero filler, with the operation and its key qualifier front-loaded and the return contents following. Nothing here would be cut without losing information.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it names what is fetched and enumerates the returned fields, compensating for the absent output schema. Only minor operational details (failure behavior on unknown UUIDs, rate limits) are missing.

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%; the schema already fully documents 'key' (UUID format, example value, and how to obtain UUIDs from gbif_registry_search_datasets). The description only restates 'by its UUID' and therefore earns the baseline 3 rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 (complete metadata for a GBIF dataset) qualified by the lookup key (by its UUID), so the agent can immediately tell this is a point-fetch rather than the listing tool gbif_registry_search_datasets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other per-dataset siblings (dataset_metrics, dataset_document), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetching 'by its UUID' signals it is only appropriate when the UUID is already known, and the schema points to gbif_registry_search_datasets for discovery. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (metrics/document) to route the agent among the per-dataset siblings.

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