gbif_species_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that – no note on pagination behavior, result volume, or performance – so it sits at the minimum viable level given rich annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with no repetition. The trailing 'and more' is mild filler that could have been replaced with a routing hint, keeping it short of a 5.

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 17-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't describe the result shape, pagination expectations, or how the large optional filter set is meant to be combined. Annotations and schema carry most of the load, but an agent still lacks selection context 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 description coverage is 100% and every one of the 17 parameters carries its own description with enum values and examples. The phrase 'rank, status, habitat, threat level, and more' just echoes a subset of the schema, adding no new meaning, 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 (Search) and resource (species in the GBIF taxonomic backbone), which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like gbif_species_suggest or gbif_species_match, which also take name-like queries, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 lists filter categories but gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to the many sibling species tools. It never says when to prefer this over gbif_species_suggest (autocomplete) or gbif_species_match (name resolution), which is the main routing decision an agent faces.

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