expand_term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtered to Census presence' but does not explain what that implies (e.g., whether it modifies the expansion or filters results). There is no indication of read-only or destructive behavior, rate limits, or side effects, which is critical for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but not structured. It lacks readability enhancements (e.g., bullet points) for a tool with 5 parameters. The sentence is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, the expected output format, or any side effects. The tool's complexity demands a more detailed description to be usable by an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. Parameters like 'facet' and 'include_counts' are unexplained, and the role of 'direction' is only implied by the enum values. The default values alone do not clarify semantic intent.

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 action ('expand'), the resource ('CURIE'), and the specific context ('descendants/ancestors filtered to Census presence'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'resolve_term', which likely returns a single definition. However, 'Census presence' is not immediately clear without domain knowledge, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_term' or 'term_definition'. The description does not mention typical use cases, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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