bc_search_ontology_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return structure (Terms array, etc.) and that it can return an error message, but does not state whether it is read-only or has side effects. Some transparency is added, but more context on behavior would be beneficial.

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 returns block, all front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous words, and the structure efficiently conveys purpose, precondition, and output format.

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 an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete: it states the action, necessary prerequisite, and high-level return structure. It could mention read-only nature, but overall it is sufficient for an agent.

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%, and the schema descriptions are already detailed (e.g., 'Comma-separated ontology IDs...'). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 starts with 'Search for terms across multiple ontologies in OLS,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also instructs to use get_available_ontologies() first, distinguishing it from tools that search within a single ontology or retrieve details for a known term.

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 tells the agent to use get_available_ontologies() first, providing a clear precondition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for known ontology-specific searches), but the sibling tools imply alternatives.

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