whodb_platform_discover_shared_ontologies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that workspace targets a single call without changing the session default — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether sharing visibility is permission-filtered.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the workspace schema description, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

For a 10-parameter, zero-required, read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose but omits return shape and pagination expectations (limit/offset exist in the schema but no guidance on using them). Adequate, not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of workspace {host, org, project} for per-call targeting restates what the workspace schema description already says, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ontologies other projects share that the selected project may reference'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling whodb_platform_shared_ontologies (and shared_by_me/shared_with_me), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these list tools is the right one.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternatives despite several near-identical siblings (shared_ontologies, ontologies, shared_by_me, shared_with_me). The only contextual hint is that workspace can target a project per call, which is task mechanics rather than selection guidance.

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