get_compound_reactions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description clarifies scope ('all reactions involving a compound') but does not explain edge cases like invalid compound_id or whether results include reactant/product roles.

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?

Very concise: two-line main description plus structured Args section. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. 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 output schema exists, description need not detail return format. For a simple query tool with one required param, the description covers essential usage. Could mention compound_role (reactant/product) but not necessary.

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 has 0% coverage for compound_id, but description provides 'KEGG compound ID (e.g. 'C00002')' which adds format and domain context beyond the schema's bare string type.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'reactions', and condition 'involving a KEGG compound'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_reaction_info and get_compound_info.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as search_reactions or get_pathway_reactions. The context of sibling tools implies use, but no when-not or alternative mentions.

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