gbif_validator_validate_dwca

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful scope about what is checked (structure, required fields, quality, format) and that a report is returned. However, it omits the asynchronous download/validation behavior that the schema mentions, which is the most consequential trait for an agent to know.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by scope, output, and usage. Each sentence contributes, though "checks data structure, required fields, data quality, and format compliance" partially restates "validate against GBIF standards."

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 does supply the return shape (issues, warnings, recommendations) and the validation scope. The main gap is the asynchronous execution model, which is left only to the schema.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents fileUrl's format, accessibility requirement, and contents. The description adds only the general notion of a DwC-A file, 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 (validate a Darwin Core Archive file) plus the standard it validates against (GBIF), which cleanly separates it from gbif_validator_validate_tabular and gbif_validator_get_status.

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?

"Essential before publishing datasets to GBIF" gives one when-to-use cue, but there is no explicit contrast with the sibling gbif_validator_validate_tabular or gbif_validator_get_status, so the agent must infer which validator applies to which input.

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