Get Mammalian Phenotype Term

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds detail about the return structure (parents, children, top-level systems) and input format, which provides useful behavioral context 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 two sentences plus a signature line, every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and details are efficiently presented.

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 complexity of an ontology term lookup, the description fully specifies the return fields and how to use the output with sibling tools. No output schema is present, but the description provides sufficient structural context.

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 clear description and examples. The description adds little beyond restating the parameter name and format, providing no additional semantic depth.

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 specifically states the action 'Return a Mammalian Phenotype (MP) ontology term' and lists exact fields returned (id, name, definition, parents, children, top-level systems). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_markers_by_phenotype by specifying the output.

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 chaining with find_markers_by_phenotype and provides the function signature. Although it does not list when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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