Resolve HPO Cross-Reference

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the response structure (matches plus pagination), pagination behavior with 'next_commands', and the function signature. No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences), with the first sentence clearly stating purpose and the second adding critical pagination and signature details. No redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and pagination. For a lookup tool with good annotations, this is complete and sufficient.

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% with good descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds a function signature listing parameters and mentions pagination, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool's purpose: resolving external cross-reference CURIEs to HPO terms. It lists supported prefixes (UMLS, SNOMEDCT_US, etc.) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'resolve_term' which likely handles HPO IDs, and 'map_cross_ontology' which maps between ontologies.

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 when an external ID needs to be mapped to HPO terms, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'resolve_term' or 'map_cross_ontology'. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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