Map Cross-Ontology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds grouping and mapping relations. However, it mentions a 'fields' parameter not present in the input schema, which contradicts the schema and could mislead an agent about available options.

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, which is brief. However, the inconsistent mention of 'fields' introduces confusion and wastes space. Front-loading is adequate but the inconsistency hurts 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and main parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is mostly complete but the 'fields' inconsistency raises questions about the true behavior, harming completeness.

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 the schema fully describes parameters. The description adds value by explaining how to use each parameter (e.g., term accepts ORPHAcode, label, or xref; prefixes restricts; response_mode controls verbosity) and provides examples. This exceeds the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('cross-references to other ontologies'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on genes, phenotypes, or disease details. It also clarifies grouping by source and mapping relations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and optional filters (prefixes, response_mode). Mentions sparse projection with 'fields' but lacks a clear when-not-to-use statement. Sibling differentiation is implicit.

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