get_gene_ontology_terms

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the output is human-readable labels, which is not captured by the annotation or schema. No contradictions or missing behavioral disclosures.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema (though not shown), the description is complete for its purpose. It fully communicates what the tool does, and the output schema covers return-value details.

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 0%, and the description adds little beyond the parameter name 'go_ids' — it merely restates 'Gene Ontology identifiers' without providing examples, format constraints, or batch handling details. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Resolve Gene Ontology identifiers to human-readable labels' uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('Gene Ontology identifiers'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on diseases, drugs, or targets. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 the exact usage scenario: whenever GO identifiers need to be converted to readable labels. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, the tool's specificity makes its use case clear, and no sibling tool competes for this function.

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