gbif_registry_search_organizations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lowered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—nothing about pagination interaction between limit/offset, rate limits, or the shape/volume of results—so it earns little credit.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose, concrete examples, then use case. All sentences contribute; no filler or repetition. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but well structured.

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 5-param read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, examples, and intended use. Annotations carry the safety profile. It is essentially complete, though return-value expectations are left implicit.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (q, limit, offset, country, isEndorsed) with examples and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 (search) and resource (data-publishing organizations in the GBIF network), and names concrete examples (museums, herbaria, research institutions). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools like gbif_registry_search_networks or gbif_registry_get_organization, so it stops short of 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?

"Use to discover data providers and understand institutional participation" gives an implied use case, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_organization (for a single org) or organization_datasets. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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