Reference Term List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds that the upstream is a remote service (EBI OLS4) and that results come one page at a time. It does not disclose rate limits, page ordering, total-count behavior, or what happens with an invalid ontology id — meaningful gaps for a remote paginated read.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence and the parameter note follows. The `:data:`world_reference_mcp.config...`` reference is documentation-syntax leakage that means little to an agent, a minor waste.

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?

An output schema is present, so return values need not be described here. Given a simple three-parameter paginated list, the description supplies the action, the upstream, and the ontology id domain — enough to call the tool correctly, with only paging semantics thin.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and covers only `ontology`, with a concrete value list plus a pointer to the config module. `page` and `size` are left entirely unexplained beyond their schema defaults, so two of three parameters get no semantics from either source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list one page of one OBO ontology's terms, sourced from EBI OLS4. The scope (one ontology, paginated) is explicit and the name is distinctive against the sibling search tools, though it never says how it differs from them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parameter note enumerates valid ontology ids (go, uberon, envo, pato, chebi, foodon), which tells the agent what to pass but not when to prefer this tool over a search sibling or when to page through results. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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