whodb_platform_ontology_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: empty entities means whole-project scope, and workspace targets override per-call without mutating defaults. It does not mention response size or pagination behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences with the purpose and the call-first instruction front-loaded, followed by scoping details. No filler, though the workspace sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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, zero-required-param describe tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and how scoping works. The only gap is that the include_inferred flag's effect is left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the empty-entities semantics and the per-call workspace override (both already in schema text) but says nothing about include_inferred, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 (Describe) and resource (ontologies) and enumerates the shape of the output (plain text plus structured entities, fields, relationships), which meaningfully distinguishes it from the plain list tool whodb_platform_ontologies and the summary tool whodb_platform_data_model_summary. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer which sibling to skip.

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?

"Call this first when answering a data question so property names and links are known" gives clear, actionable when-to-use guidance and even establishes an ordering relative to other tools. It does not name a when-not condition or an inferior alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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