get_ontology_descendants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read operation but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned descendants (e.g., list structure, depth). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 ontology operations, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'descendant terms' entail (e.g., hierarchical relationships, data format), potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable tool invocation.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'closest_terms'), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It mentions 'ontology term' which aligns with the 'id' parameter, but provides no extra semantic context beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the action ('Get') and target resource ('descendant terms for an ontology term'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ontology_ancestors' or 'get_ontology_by_id', which would require mentioning directionality or scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ontology_ancestors' or 'search_ontology_by_name'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid ontology term ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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