gbif_registry_get_institution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming the return payload (metadata, collections, contacts, addresses, identifiers), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior for unknown keys.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the payload and a use case. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers action, returns, and intent adequately. Minor gaps remain around absent-key behavior and the relationship to the search tool, but nothing essential to invoking it is 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'key' parameter is fully documented, including format (uuid), an example, and the source sibling (gbif_registry_search_institutions). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 institution from GRSciColl') and enumerates the returned content. The singular 'specific institution' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search tool, but no sibling is named explicitly in the description itself.

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?

'Use to understand institution profiles and their collection holdings' gives a purpose-driven context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus gbif_registry_search_institutions, nor any exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. needing a key from search first). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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