map_ids

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as matching behavior, entity scope, or handling of unmatchable terms. It merely restates the purpose without enriching understanding.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's function and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits details about entity_names and the breadth of entity types covered. While the core purpose is clear, the agent would need additional clarification for full correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It hints that query_terms are the free-text terms but leaves entity_names undefined. The phrase 'canonical Open Targets identifiers' does not explain how entity_names influences the mapping.

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 specifies the verb 'map' and the resource 'free-text terms to canonical Open Targets identifiers', which distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools that fetch entity data. It is a specific and unambiguous statement of 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 use when free-text terms need canonical identifiers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_entities or provide exclusions. No sibling comparisons are made.

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