mesa_ols_get_term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the response payload contents (label, CURIE, synonyms, definition, parents/children), which is the most valuable thing here given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown IRI, required permissions, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and lookup key come first and the returned fields follow as a compact parenthetical.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields compensates well for the absent return-value documentation. The remaining gap is behavioral (error handling, permissions), which matters slightly more because there are no annotations to fall back on.

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%, with the iri parameter documented including a concrete example, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by IRI' and adds no format, casing, or ontology_id/iri relationship detail 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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (single OLS term) and it enumerates the returned record fields (label, CURIE, synonyms, definition, parents/children). It is clearly distinguishable from search-style siblings, but it never names mesa_ols_search_terms or mesa_ols_get_term_hierarchy, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: 'by IRI' signals that this is a direct lookup when the identifier is already known, which contrasts loosely with mesa_ols_search_terms. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on where to obtain the IRI, and no mention of the hierarchy sibling that also returns parents/children.

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