mesa_ols_search_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the operation itself: no result ordering, ranking, pagination, or the fact that the hierarchy walk requires ontology_id to be meaningful. The one useful behavioral hint ('hierarchy walk') is thin.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed immediately by the optional narrowing behavior. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to select and call the tool. It is missing return-behavior context (ordering, result shape, default limit semantics) that the absent annotations and output schema leave uncovered.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents query, size, ontology_id and descendants_of (including the allChildrenOf compatibility note). The description adds only the 'hierarchy walk' framing and does not clarify the ontology_id + descendants_of interaction beyond what the schema says.

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 (search) and resource (OLS terms) and adds scope framing ('across all ontologies or scoped to one'), which separates it from sibling readers like mesa_ols_get_term and mesa_ols_get_term_hierarchy. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when the scoping and descendant options apply, but that is essentially a restatement of the schema parameters rather than independent usage guidance. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to the alternative tools (get_term, get_term_hierarchy) an agent should consider.

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