gbif_species_distributions

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 fully covered. The description adds useful content context by naming the record fields (occurrence status, establishment means, locality details), but it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently lists the record contents without padding.

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 list tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the return-content categories, though it stops short of noting that results are paginated or describing the record shape, which would help since no output schema exists.

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 fully documents key, limit, and offset. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get known geographic distribution records for a species.' It clarifies the kind of data returned (occurrence status, establishment means, locality details), which separates it from generic species lookup tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like gbif_species_get or gbif_occurrence_search, so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent must infer that this is for distribution data specifically and cannot tell from the description alone how it differs in use case from gbif_species_get, gbif_maps_get_tile_url, or gbif_occurrence_search.

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