whodb_platform_ontology

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: the workspace argument is scoped to this call only and 'does not change defaults', meaning the tool has no side effect on session state. Return format and any cost/latency behavior are still unstated.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the targeting caveat follows, which is the correct ordering for an agent scanning for the primary action.

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 read-only single-object inspect this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description carries the burden of saying what an 'ontology object type' inspection returns and how it differs from ontology_describe or ontologies. Neither is addressed, leaving a real ambiguity in a family of ~150 sibling tools.

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%, including the full workspace precedence chain (session_use, then process/saved defaults) and field-selection advice on 'fields'. The description merely restates the workspace shape already documented in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('one ontology object type'), and the selector ('by id'), which cleanly separates it from the plural listing sibling whodb_platform_ontologies and from record-level tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the superficially similar whodb_platform_ontology_describe, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one ... by id' tells the agent this is a single-object lookup, and the workspace sentence hints that per-call targeting is the alternative to changing session defaults. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. session_use or ontology_describe), so the agent must infer routing.

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