Map HPO Cross-Ontology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description focuses on grouping behavior by prefix and optional restrictions. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a function signature. It is front-loaded and concise, though the signature may be redundant given the schema.

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 explains the output is 'grouped by target prefix' but lacks detail on return structure (e.g., keys). Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal new meaning. It repeats parameter names in the signature and mentions prefix grouping, but the schema already contains detailed descriptions for each parameter.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'an HPO term's cross-references to other ontologies/vocabularies, grouped by target prefix'. It enumerates specific prefixes (UMLS, SNOMEDCT_US, etc.) and notes optional filtering, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_term (returns term details) or resolve_xref.

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 indicates the tool's purpose and mentions optional prefix restriction. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context of siblings and the tool's specific functionality (cross-references) makes its use case clear.

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