get_reaction_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds useful context about the two detail levels ('summary' vs 'full') and the nature of the returned data.

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 extremely concise, using only two sentences plus a structured argument list. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and expected behavior without needing to detail return values since the output schema handles that.

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 properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining reaction_id with an example ('R00756' for glucose phosphorylation) and detail_level with clear meanings ('summary' default, 'full' for complete flat-file parse).

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information for a KEGG reaction', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search_reactions that search for reactions rather than retrieving details.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_reactions. It does not mention any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's basic purpose.

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