bc_get_cell_ontology_terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using OLS, a controlled vocabulary, and specifies the return structure (dict with cl_terms array). However, it does not discuss error cases or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 very concise: a single sentence stating purpose, followed by a bullet list of return fields. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, source (OLS), and return format. It mentions controlled vocabulary. With output schema present, no need to detail return values further. Could mention search behavior nuances, but sufficient overall.

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 description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The schema descriptions are clear, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches OLS for Cell Ontology (CL) terms, specifying the controlled vocabulary for cell types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bc_search_ontology_terms (which searches all ontologies) and bc_get_term_details (which retrieves specific term details).

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 implicitly indicates use for cell type terms but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., other ontology search tools). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given, which is a gap given many sibling tools.

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