gbif_registry_get_network

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 structurally. The description adds that the response includes constituent datasets, contacts, and description text, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about invalid-key behavior or pagination of the constituent datasets.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return contents and intended use. No filler, though the final 'Use to...' sentence is the weakest and could be more directive.

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 compensates reasonably by naming the return payload (metadata, constituent datasets, contacts, description). Errors and response shape details are absent but minor for a simple lookup.

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 key parameter is fully described (UUID format, examples, and where to obtain it). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Get complete details for a specific dataset network') and enumerates what it returns (metadata, datasets, contacts, description). It reads as the by-id counterpart to gbif_registry_search_networks, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the sibling's own name.

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 collaborative data initiatives and their scope' gives a purpose but not a when-to-use rule or an alternative. The routing hint (get the key from gbif_registry_search_networks) lives in the schema, not the description, so usage is only implied.

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