Resolve HPO Term

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context: ambiguous labels return ambiguous_query with candidates, obsolete HP ids return not_found with replaced_by, and response_mode affects verbosity. No 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by edge cases and usage recommendation. Every sentence adds critical information with no wasted words. Highly efficient and scanned easily.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple input types, ambiguous/obsolete behavior, response modes) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects. Could elaborate on candidate structure or replaced_by format, but likely documented in output schema. Adequate for selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, clearly defining query types with examples and response_mode options. The tool description reinforces this by mentioning edge cases and the output structure, adding value beyond the schema without redundancy.

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 resolves phenotype labels, synonyms, HP ids, or external xrefs to canonical HPO terms. It specifies the output structure (hpo_id, name, match_type) and distinguishes from siblings like resolve_xref and get_term by detailing input types and edge cases.

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?

Explicitly recommends this as the first step before calling get_term. It implies usage for resolving any query to a canonical HP id, providing clear context. Does not list specific when-not-to-use scenarios, but the recommendation is strong.

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