bc_get_term_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the return format (dict with details or error message) and hints at read-only behavior by listing fields. However, it does not explicitly state it is a non-destructive read operation or note any authentication requirements.

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 concise, with two sentences and a return type specification. No unnecessary words; 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 that output schema exists (not shown but context confirms), the description is complete for a simple retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters. It lists all relevant fields returned and mentions error handling.

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 adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already describes term_id as CURIE format and ontology_id with examples. The description does not introduce new parameter semantics.

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 retrieves comprehensive details about a specific ontology term, listing definition, synonyms, hierarchical relationships, and num_descendants. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bc_search_ontology_terms' (search-oriented) and 'bc_get_term_hierarchical_children' (only children).

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 implies the tool is used when a term_id and ontology_id are known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. For example, it could mention to use 'bc_search_ontology_terms' if the term ID is unknown.

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