Resolve HPO Term

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: handling of ambiguous labels (returns candidates), obsolete HP IDs (success with obsolete flag and replaced_by), and response_mode verbosity. 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 sentences plus a signature line, compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 and two parameters, the description covers input types, edge cases (ambiguous, obsolete), and usage recommendation. It lacks detailed explanation of response_mode output structure but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: query input types (label, synonym, ID, CURIE) and response_mode enum with default. It also explains the signature.

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 cross-references to canonical HPO terms. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_term and 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 explicitly recommends this as the first step before calling get_term, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives for other scenarios.

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