Search HPO Terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it uses FTS with relevance ranking, explains pagination (total, returned, limit, offset, truncated, next_offset), and notes next_commands for paging. 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 moderately long but front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (e.g., FTS, return structure, pagination, signature). Could be slightly more concise but maintains clarity.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains return values for each response mode, pagination, and paging behavior. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: it explains the effect of response_mode on output (e.g., compact adds definition_snippet), describes pagination block, and provides examples for the query parameter. This elevates it above baseline 3.

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 it performs 'full-text search over HPO phenotype term names, synonyms, and definitions' with relevance ranking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_term (which retrieves by ID) by specifying it is a search operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching by text, synonyms, or IDs) and notes behavior for obsolete terms. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is sufficient given the distinct sibling tool names.

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