GBIF Species Occurrences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description need not duplicate safety. It adds behavioral context about returned fields and data source, but lacks details on pagination or rate limits. Overall, good value beyond annotations.

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 purpose and filters. No redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, providing scale, returns, and source in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description covers purpose, filters, return fields, and source. The limit parameter is documented in schema, and output schema handles return structure. No critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by taxon, country, and year, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., taxon_key, ISO country code). It merely restates what the schema already says.

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 the tool searches species occurrence records, lists filterable fields (taxon, country, year), and specifies returned data (coordinates, date, collector institution, basis of record). It distinguishes from sibling tools (occurrence_count, species_details, species_search) by focusing on occurrences.

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 implies usage for retrieving occurrence data with specific filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., occurrence_count for totals). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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