describe_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It enumerates exactly what information is returned (parent, subclass, equivalent class, restrictions, individuals), which is transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what happens if the class does not exist.

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 conveys all necessary information without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a list of what is returned. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value. It could mention prerequisites like the ontology being loaded, but given the complexity, it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'class_name'. The description adds value by specifying the format (local name like 'BankStatement'), which helps the agent provide the correct value. No additional parameters need explanation.

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 that the tool describes a class, listing its parent, subclass, equivalent class, restrictions, and all individuals. It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('class'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_classes or describe_individual.

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 detailed information about a class is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_classes for names only, or describe_individual for individuals). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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