query_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses AND logic, filter semantics (e.g., transitive subClassOf for parent_iri, leaf vs non-leaf for has_children), defaults for deprecated and match_mode, and the return format. It does not cover error handling or performance, but for a query tool the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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 opens with a clear purpose, then uses well-organized bullet sections for text filters, structural filters, control, and returns. Every sentence is informative, and the structure makes it easy to scan. It is detailed without wasting words.

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?

The tool is complex with 12 parameters, but the description covers all of them with meaningful context. It explains the overall AND logic, default behaviors, and return type. The output schema is said to exist, so not detailing the exact return structure is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 must fully compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter's meaning, including RDF properties (rdfs:label, skos:definition), providing branch examples, and defining match_mode values. This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 queries FOLIO concepts with composable filters. It explicitly differentiates from sibling search_concepts by positioning itself as more powerful and supporting field-specific matching, structural constraints, and multiple match modes.

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 explains the tool's capabilities and contrasts it with search_concepts, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the simpler sibling tool, so the guidance is context-rich but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond a comparative phrase.

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