GBIF Species Search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorld. Description adds context about source and CC0, and that results include taxonomic information, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides specific information (search scope, return fields, filter, source).

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?

The description is complete for a search tool: it explains what is searched, what is returned, how to filter, and the data source. Given annotations and output schema exist, no gaps remain.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., 'by common or scientific name' and 'Filter by rank'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches 9M+ species in the GBIF backbone taxonomy by common or scientific name, and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like occurrence_count and species_details.

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 specifies when to use this tool (search by name) and mentions filtering by rank, but does not explicitly exclude usage or compare with alternatives like species_details for more detailed information.

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