gbif_vocabularies_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that vocabularies enumerate valid field values (basisOfRecord, occurrenceStatus, etc.), which is useful context, but says nothing about return size or response shape beyond the schema note.

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 scope, each adding a distinct piece of information. The closing 'Essential for...' sentence is mildly promotional but still justifies the tool's relevance to filter-value discovery.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough conceptual context (what vocabularies are, which fields they govern) for an agent to use it correctly. Return-value details are absent but reasonably unnecessary here.

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?

The tool takes zero input parameters, so parameter semantics carry no burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The schema description and the prose agree that no filtering is offered.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List all controlled vocabularies used in GBIF.' The 'all' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the gbif_vocabularies_get_concept sibling, though it never names that alternative explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Essential for understanding valid filter values and data standardization,' telling the agent why it would call this. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to the get_concept sibling for single-concept lookups.

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