gbif_vocabularies_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content disclosure (all valid values, descriptions, usage notes), which matters because no output schema exists, though it says nothing about size or pagination for large vocabularies.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the return detail and the use case. The second sentence largely restates the first's 'all its concepts and definitions' clause, which is minor duplication rather than a structural flaw.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition supplies what is missing: a plain-language statement of what comes back. No output schema exists, so the return summary is genuinely additive; only pagination/size behavior remains unaddressed.

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 schema itself lists example vocabulary names and points to gbif_vocabularies_list. The description contributes no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a specific controlled vocabulary') and clarifies scope by saying it returns the complete vocabulary with all concepts and definitions, which separates it from the list and single-concept siblings. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Use to understand valid values for specific GBIF fields" gives a positive use case, so usage is implied rather than absent. There is no when-not guidance and no reference to gbif_vocabularies_list or gbif_vocabularies_get_concept as alternatives, even though those are the obvious near-neighbors.

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