gbif_registry_get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds the shape of returned fields, which is useful, but doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid UUID, not found) or anything beyond the annotation profile.

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 tight sentences: purpose, return contents, usage context. Front-loaded and no filler.

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 required-param read tool with full schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, and usage context adequately. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the main returned fields, which is sufficient; arguably could mention key sourcing but the schema already does.

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 schema description already explains the key is a node UUID obtained from gbif_registry_list_nodes. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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 (Get) and resource (GBIF participant node), and enumerates what the response contains (metadata, contacts, participation type, country, endorsement). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like gbif_registry_list_nodes or gbif_registry_get_organization.

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 a clear purpose context ('Use to understand national GBIF participation, governance structure, and institutional membership') implying when to reach for it. Does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion criteria, so not a 5.

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