Get HPO Term

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral details like identifier resolution order ('resolved first') and synonym shape variations (compact vs standard/full), which go beyond annotations.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences) with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, subsequent sentences add details on inputs and output shape.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (definition, synonyms with shape details, always-included anchors) and input flexibility (multiple identifier types and response modes). Covers all key aspects for correct usage.

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%, but description adds significant meaning: explains hpo_id accepts multiple types, fields is for sparse projection, response_mode verbosity levels, and always-included anchors. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 returns an HPO phenotype term record with specific fields like definition, synonyms, alt_ids, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_term_ancestors returns only ancestors) by implying this returns the full term record.

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 that the tool accepts various identifier types (HP id, label, synonym, xref) and provides parameter details, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_term_ancestors. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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