gbif_species_vernacular_names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral note—that preferred names are returned when available—but says nothing about empty results, per-language coverage, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence ('Returns preferred names when available') is mildly vague but does add a distinct point rather than restating the first.

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 four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is adequate but thin on the output side: there is no output schema, yet the shape of a vernacular-name result (name, language, preferred flag) is never described. Inputs and safety are well covered; returns are not.

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, offset, and language are each documented with examples and defaults in the schema itself. The description mentions multi-language support but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get vernacular (common) names for a species' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gbif_species_synonyms, gbif_species_descriptions, and gbif_species_distributions. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named (e.g., would an agent use this or gbif_species_get for common names?). The phrase 'in multiple languages' implies a use case for language filtering, but that is inference, not guidance.

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