ensembl_ontotax

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search' and 'traversal' operations but doesn't specify whether these are read-only, have rate limits, require authentication, or what format results return. For a tool with 5 parameters and complex logic (multiple required parameter combinations via anyOf), this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the domain (ontology/taxonomy), operations (search/traversal), and examples of what can be searched. There's zero redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 tool with 5 parameters, complex conditional requirements (anyOf with three alternative required sets), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the different parameter combinations work together, what the tool returns, or the scope of operations. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema to understand functionality.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the types of ontologies and taxonomy, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Ontology term search and NCBI taxonomy traversal' with specific examples of what can be searched (GO terms, phenotype ontologies, taxonomic classifications). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ontology/taxonomy operations rather than sequence, variation, or comparative genomics tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping functionality in sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other search or traversal methods. The agent must infer usage from the description alone without explicit direction.

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