gbif_species_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces openWorld by noting media come 'from various sources' and that it returns URLs plus metadata, but adds no auth, rate-limit, or pagination-behavior detail beyond the schema.

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 content types, with the return-shape note second. No filler or repetition.

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 usefully states that it returns URLs and metadata, and all three parameters are fully specified in the schema. Missing only minor context such as typical volume of results or attribution/licensing caveats hinted at in the schema.

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%; the key, limit, and offset parameters are all thoroughly documented in the schema, including an example species key and pagination semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 associated multimedia records for a species') and enumerates the content types (images, sounds, videos), so the agent can tell it apart from gbif_species_get or gbif_species_descriptions conceptually. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call it when you want media for a known species key. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., when to prefer occurrence media or how it relates to gbif_species_descriptions).

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