GBIF Occurrence Count

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the source citation (GBIF) which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (function, use cases, data source). No unnecessary words.

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 an output schema present (not shown but indicated by context), annotations covering safety, and a simple count operation, the description is mostly complete. It could mention what happens when no records exist, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered by country' merely restates what is in the schema, adding no new meaning. Score at baseline due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly states it returns a total occurrence count for a species, with optional country filter. It directly addresses the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like gbif.biodiversity.occurrences (which returns detailed records) and gbif.biodiversity.species_details/search.

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?

The description lists use cases (range size estimation, data density assessment, conservation status analysis) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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