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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing what the returned record contains and by emphasizing the exactness of the IRI requirement, which is a behavioral constraint that affects whether the call succeeds. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, each carrying distinct, useful information: what the record contains, how authoritative it is, and how to supply the parameters. The content is front-loaded with the purpose and output, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly: it names the resource type, the required parameters, the source of the acceptable IRI, and the expected contents of the response. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameter documentation, so no critical guidance is missing.

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 schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic guidance on top: it explicitly ties class_id to the exact output of bioportal_search and clarifies that the ontology parameter is an acronym. This reduces ambiguity about how the two required parameters relate to each other and to the tool's workflow.

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 a specific action: retrieving the full record for a single ontology class by its IRI. It goes beyond a generic lookup by enumerating the exact content included (preferred label, synonyms, definition, semantic types, obsolescence flag, parents, children) and positions the tool as the authoritative source for a canonical concept. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like bioportal_search, which returns search results rather than a single record.

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 provides clear operational guidance: pass the ontology acronym and the class IRI exactly as bioportal_search returned it. It also indicates when this tool is appropriate by calling it AUTHORITATIVE for the canonical meaning of a coded concept. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, but the instruction to use the exact IRI from bioportal_search gives enough context to infer the intended workflow.

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