gbif_species_parents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds that the response is the full hierarchy of parent taxa, which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about behavior for root taxa or invalid keys.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy between 'complete taxonomic classification path' and 'full hierarchy including all parent taxa,' but 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 single-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, a 100%-documented schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the response shape (kingdom-to-taxon lineage). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single 'key' parameter is documented in the schema with an example (5219404 Panthera leo) showing the exact return lineage. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 and resource: 'Get the complete taxonomic classification path from kingdom down to the specified taxon.' The upward direction of traversal is clear, which implicitly separates it from descendant-oriented siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly (e.g., gbif_species_children, gbif_species_get).

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 breadcrumb navigation and understanding taxonomic position' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement among the many species_* siblings. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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