Get Term

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

The annotations already declare this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation. The description usefully adds that the returned term includes mapped columns with sample values and formats, plus related Terms with join conditions and multiplicity, but it does not mention lookup failure behavior, datasource ambiguity, or other operational caveats.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key scope ('One Term'). The fragmentary noun-phrase style is slightly less readable than a complete sentence, but every listed detail is informative.

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 simple read operation with annotations covering safety, a fully described two-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what details are available for a term, though it omits usage routing and edge-case behavior.

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 fully documents that 'term' accepts a name, synonym, or id, and that 'datasource' is optional when only one datasource is registered. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource as a single Term and enumerates the detailed information returned: definition, status, synonyms, mapped columns, SQL attributes, and related Terms. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_terms by saying 'One Term', but it does not use an explicit retrieval verb or name the alternative tool.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The singular 'One Term' suggests it is for fetching a specific term rather than listing terms, but the agent must infer this without any stated comparison to list_terms or search_ontology.

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