gbif_species_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral notion that matching is fuzzy, but says nothing about result confidence, no-match behavior, or what happens with ambiguous names. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool whose output shape and disambiguation behavior matter.

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 read-only, fully-schema-documented tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what a 'match' returns (accepted name, taxon key, confidence, alternatives). That gap matters for deciding whether to call this versus sibling species tools.

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%: both 'name' and 'strict' are fully documented in the input schema, including the fuzzy/strict distinction and an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (fuzzy match) and resource (species name) plus the target authority (GBIF backbone taxonomy), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like gbif_species_parse_names, gbif_species_suggest, or gbif_species_search, leaving the agent to guess which matching tool fits a given case.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives, despite several similar species tools in the sibling list. The only usage-like hint (fuzzy vs strict) lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent gets no routing help here.

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