gbif_species_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that only direct children are returned, not the full descendant subtree — but says nothing about result format or ordering.

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 core action and scope qualifier; the parenthetical example earns its place by making the hierarchy direction unambiguous. 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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the essentials are present, and pagination is handled by the schema's limit/offset docs. However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate what a returned child entry contains (key, name, rank), leaving a modest gap.

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 already documents key, limit, and offset thoroughly, including an example parent key. The description's parenthetical examples echo that without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 direct taxonomic children of a taxon', with concrete examples (species under a genus). The word 'direct' contrasts implicitly with the sibling gbif_species_parents and with recursive descendants, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful for exploring taxonomy hierarchically' implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives such as gbif_species_parents, gbif_species_related, or gbif_species_get. The agent must infer which taxonomy-navigation tool fits.

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