gbif_registry_search_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read against an open registry. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no pagination semantics, result ordering, or registry coverage limits - so it neither contradicts nor enriches 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource name and scope, with no filler. The last sentence is somewhat thin ("and their metadata") but still earns its place as a usage cue.

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?

With no output schema, the description shoulders the return-value burden; "discover physical specimen holdings and their metadata" only loosely signals the return shape, and pagination via limit/offset is left to the schema. For a 7-param, optional-only search tool with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so all seven parameters (q, city, code, limit, offset, country, institution) already carry examples and constraints in the schema. The description adds no additional filter semantics, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (GRSciColl natural history collections) and enumerates the collection types covered (museum, herbarium, tissue). It is clearly distinct from siblings like gbif_registry_search_datasets or gbif_registry_search_occurrences, but it never names the nearest-neighbor alternative (gbif_registry_search_institutions), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 discover physical specimen holdings and their metadata" gives a usage context, so it is more than nothing. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_institutions or get_collection, and no prerequisites (e.g., obtain institution UUIDs first, which the schema mentions but the description does not reinforce).

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