go_term_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that this is a lookup operation and enumerates what will be returned, including the GO aspect categories. It does not discuss invalid ID handling, but for a simple read-only lookup the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a useful expanded explanation with input example and output details. Every sentence contributes value, and the bilingual phrasing is not redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it gives the input format, the purpose, and the expected return fields. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly distinguishing from GO search tools, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly identifies the parameter as a GO ID and provides a concrete example (GO:0006915), which adds meaningful format guidance beyond the bare schema field name 'go_id'.

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 a specific action (look up) and resource (Gene Ontology term by GO ID), and even enumerates the returned fields (name, aspect, definition, synonyms). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like go_term_search, but the 'by GO ID' scoping makes the purpose clear.

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 intended use case: when you have a GO ID and want details to understand gene function annotations. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as go_term_search or gene_go_annotation, nor does it provide exclusions.

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