Get HPO Term

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about xref resolution and sparse projection via fields parameter. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two concise sentences plus a signature line, all front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence is meaningful and adds value.

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 description covers what the tool returns, accepted inputs, and the fields parameter. Since an output schema exists, return format details are handled. The response_mode parameter is only mentioned in the signature but its purpose is clear from schema enum. Slightly more guidance on when to use different response_modes would improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining that term accepts an HP id, label, or xref CURIE (resolved first) and providing an example for sparse projection. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 'Return an HPO phenotype term record' and lists specific fields (definition, synonyms, alt_ids, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_term_ancestors and get_term_children by focusing on the full record retrieval.

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 getting a full term record and gives input flexibility (HP id, label, xref). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like search_terms or resolve_xref, leaving some ambiguity.

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