Plant Ontology (PO/TO) Terms

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about data source (Planteome), filtering by NCBI taxon, return format (annotations array and by_ontology rollup), deduplication on term_id, and coverage limitations. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded purpose and key details. It is slightly verbose (5 sentences) but every sentence contributes value, including usage guidelines and return format. Could shorten coverage explanation but still concise.

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 output schema exists, the description explains return format (annotations[] and by_ontology rollup), covers defaults (organism, limit), and notes behavior for unsupported organisms (empty list, not error). Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 schema itself documents all parameters adequately. The description adds minor examples (AT1G01010, Os01g0100100) and notes that organism accepts multiple forms, but does not add substantial meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches Plant Ontology (PO), Trait Ontology (TO), and experimental-condition (PECO) annotations from Planteome for a plant locus. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'locus_go_annotations' by specifying that QuickGO serves GO while Planteome serves plant-specific ontologies.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Complements locus_go_annotations: QuickGO serves GO (species-agnostic), Planteome serves the plant-specific ontologies — PO (anatomy + developmental stage), TO (traits).' Also mentions coverage limitations and default organism.

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