Search HPO Terms

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

While annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds significant context: full-text search ranking, pagination with next_commands, exclusion of obsolete terms by default, and four response modes. This goes well beyond the 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 a single paragraph but packs essential information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides necessary details about parameters and return format. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it remains concise.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: how to use each parameter, expected return shape (hits with id/name/score, pagination block), and behavior regarding obsolete terms. It is fully 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 baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning: explains query can be a label, HP ID, or CURIE; defines response_mode verbosity levels (minimal to full); clarifies pagination fields like total, truncated, next_offset. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Full-text search over HPO phenotype term names, synonyms, and definitions (FTS, relevance-ranked)', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_term' or 'get_term_ancestors' by being a search tool rather than a direct lookup.

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 explains when to use the tool (for full-text search) and includes details like excluding obsolete terms unless overridden. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes the purpose clear.

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