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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the scope and authoritative nature of the mappings, though it does not disclose response format or rate-limit behavior beyond what the _apiKey schema description already mentions.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the authoritative use case is stated next, and the invocation guidance is clipped to the few things an agent needs to know.

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 100% schema coverage, the included example, and the annotations, the definition is nearly complete. The description helpfully lists mapping source types despite the lack of an output schema, but it does not describe the shape of the mapping result or the behavior of the optional to_ontology filter beyond its schema text.

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 schema carries the param documentation. The description adds the conceptual role of the parameters by saying to pass the ontology acronym and class IRI, but it does not materially extend the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific operation and resource: retrieving cross-ontology mappings for one class. It distinguishes itself from sibling BioPortal tools by emphasizing equivalences across all other ontologies and listing the mapping source types (SAME_URI, LOOM, CUI, REST), making its role clear even without examining the schema.

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 gives clear usage context by declaring the tool 'AUTHORITATIVE for translating a code between terminologies' and illustrating a concrete use case (NCIT to SNOMEDCT, MESH, ICD10CM). It does not explicitly contrast this with bioportal_class or bioportal_search, but the intended use case is evident enough.

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