Trait info

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that it returns associated PGS IDs, which is output-related but not behavioral. It does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or null returns, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. No extraneous words or redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema likely exists, reducing need to describe return format. However, the parameter ambiguity and lack of context about how to select between EFO and MONDO make it incomplete for a typical agent. It is adequate for a simple fetch but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions EFO or MONDO IDs but does not explicitly map them to the efo_id and trait_id parameters. It also does not clarify whether both or one is required, leaving ambiguity. This is insufficient given the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a trait by ontology ID (EFO or MONDO) and returns its associated PGS IDs. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_traits, which implies searching rather than direct fetching.

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 usage when an ontology ID is available, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_traits. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so the score is moderate.

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