query_hpo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a read-only query, this is acceptable but not ideal.

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 action, and explains the output. Every sentence provides value; there is no fluff.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's function and output. It could mention the nature of the returned data (list of terms) but is sufficient.

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 the parameter 'gene' described as 'Gene symbol'. The description adds context that this gene is used to find HPO terms, which is more about tool purpose than parameter details. It does not add format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 finds HPO terms associated with a gene, and explains what HPO terms are (clinical phenotypes linked to variants). This distinguishes it from sibling query tools like query_clinvar or query_gwas, which focus on different databases.

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 gene-phenotype associations but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_clinvar or query_disease_genes. No explicit when-to-use or 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.