termdat_get_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by noting the internal normalization quirk (Quirk 3) and the subset of data source (77,692 of ~400,000 entries), which is useful beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with XML tags separating purpose, use case, important notes, and example. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy, and it is front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity of retrieving a full concept with multiple languages and sources, the description covers purpose, accepted input formats, data source limitations, and internal quirks. With an output schema present, the description is fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 single parameter 'concept' has 0% schema description coverage per context, but the tool description explains accepted formats (ID, concept URI, term URI with language suffix) and gives an example, adding meaning beyond the schema's limited description.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a full TERMDAT entry by ID or URI, including all language designations, definitions, synonyms, and sources. It distinguishes from siblings like termdat_lookup_term and FedLex tools by specifying the 'full entry' use case.

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 <use_case> tag specifies when to use ('full view of a terminology concept'), and <important_notes> provides format details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and aids decision-making.

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