gbif_vocabularies_get_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the return contents (definition, usage notes, related terms, examples), which annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The third sentence overlaps somewhat with the opening purpose statement, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a top score.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the read-only annotations cover the rest of the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter lookup, this is nearly complete; only the relationship to sibling vocabulary tools is unstated.

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%: the schema already documents that vocabulary comes from gbif_vocabularies_list and gives case-sensitive examples per vocabulary. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb (get) and resource (a concept within a controlled vocabulary) and enumerates what comes back: definition, usage notes, related terms, examples. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling gbif_vocabularies_get, which presumably retrieves the vocabulary itself, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between the two.

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 the precise meaning and usage of specific vocabulary terms" gives a clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to the sibling vocabulary-level tool, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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