get_interaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by describing the enriched contents (mechanism prose, direction, per-function effects, kinetics, evidence) and explaining the behavioral effect of the query parameter on source/target orientation. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then covering contents and query behavior. No unnecessary words. The structure makes the most important information immediate.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the main content types of the record, providing a rough expectation of the return. It also covers the optional query behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of comparison to get_interaction_between, but the purpose is clear enough to disambiguate. Overall, it is complete for a straightforward fetch-by-id 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter well, specifying that it orients source/target. For interaction_id, only the phrase 'by id' is given, which is adequate for a self-explanatory identifier but lacks format or constraints. The description partially covers the parameters but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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), the resource (a single interaction), and the discriminator (by id). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_interactions (which lists multiple) and get_interaction_between (which finds interactions between specific proteins). The phrase 'full enriched record' also signals comprehensive detail.

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 implicitly tells the user when to use the tool: when you have an interaction_id and want the complete record. It also provides clear guidance on the optional query parameter, explaining how it reorients the record. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_interaction_between or other alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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