gbif_species_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the nature of the result ('species at the same taxonomic level with shared higher classification'), but says nothing about result volume, paging behavior, or edge cases like a leaf taxon with no siblings.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core definition of what 'related' returns before the softer use-case list. No filler, though the second sentence is a somewhat generic benefit list that could be trimmed.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a high level ('species at the same taxonomic level with shared higher classification'). Combined with rich annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a note on what fields come back would complete it.

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%: key, limit, and offset are all documented in the schema, including an illustrative example for key and range/default details for limit/offset. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get related species') and defines 'related' explicitly as siblings (same parent taxon), variants, and associated taxa, which disambiguates it from vaguer notions of relatedness. However, it never names the sibling tools it overlaps with (gbif_species_children, gbif_species_parents, gbif_species_synonyms), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Offers use cases ('taxonomic exploration', 'see also' functionality, 'discovering similar species'), which implies when it is appropriate, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no exclusions against the many sibling taxa tools. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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