Search HPO Terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no safety concerns. The description adds behavioral details: relevance-ranked FTS, pagination with next_commands when truncated, and 'Obsolete terms are excluded unless include_obsolete=true.' This provides transparency beyond 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 highly structured: main function, return format details, pagination explanation, special behavior (obsolete terms), and argument signature. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 output schema exists (mentioned but not shown), the description covers return format, pagination block details, response modes, and filter behavior. It is complete for a search tool with moderate 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% with good descriptions. The description adds further meaning: explains that compact mode adds a definition_snippet, standard/full add complete definition. It also gives examples for the query parameter including HP id and external xref CURIE, which is valuable context not present in 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?

Description starts with 'Full-text search over HPO phenotype term names, synonyms, and definitions (FTS, relevance-ranked).' This clearly states the action (search) and the resource (HPO phenotype terms), with specifics on what is searched. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_term and resolve_xref which are for specific lookups.

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?

Provides the signature and notes that obsolete terms are excluded unless include_obsolete=true. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the context of siblings (e.g., get_term, get_genes_for_phenotype) implies this is the free-text search tool. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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