gbif_species_synonyms

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 no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether results are paginated or how synonyms are ordered. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The second sentence is slightly soft ('useful for...') but does earn its place as the only usage signal present.

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 simple read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about the shape of the returned synonym records, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 'key', 'limit', and 'offset' descriptions are unusually rich (they even explain homotypic vs heterotypic synonyms and give an example key). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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 all synonyms and alternative scientific names for a species.' This clearly separates it from gbif_species_get (accepted taxon) and hints at the scientific-name domain versus gbif_species_vernacular_names, but it never explicitly names those siblings or draws 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?

'Useful for name resolution and historical name tracking' implies when the tool is relevant but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to use this versus gbif_species_match or gbif_species_parse_names). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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