Get HPO Term Ancestors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the pagination block structure (total, returned, limit, offset, truncated, next_offset) and that it uses a precomputed closure. It does not mention potential performance costs, but the existing annotations reduce the burden.

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 three sentences: first defines the main function and pagination block, second provides usage guidance and pagination handling, third gives a signature summary. It is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies that the return includes a pagination block with named fields and mentions next_commands for forward paging. It sufficiently explains the core behavior and pagination. The lack of detail on the actual ancestor format is a minor gap, but the description is still quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description adds a signature line and notes the alias for legacy 'term' arguments, but these are minor additions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 it returns 'all transitive is_a ancestors (broader phenotype terms) of an HPO term', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_term_parents' by specifying that this tool returns all ancestors while the sibling returns only immediate parents.

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 explicitly tells when not to use this tool: 'Use get_term_parents for only the immediate parents.' It also provides guidance on pagination with next_commands for walking large closures, which helps the agent decide how to handle results.

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