get_interaction_between

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail not in annotations: the orientation from `a`, implying a directional relationship (A affects B). It also hints at possible multiplicity with 'interaction(s)'. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the core function with the orientation detail front-loaded. The second sentence provides a practical use case and an alternative. There is zero fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, usage case, and orientation. However, it does not explain what the returned interaction(s) look like (structure, format, or whether it returns a list). It also fails to differentiate from the closely named sibling get_interaction, which could lead to confusion. Given the presence of multiple interaction-related siblings, this is a notable gap that reduces completeness.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that both parameters are 'named proteins' and clarifies that `a` is the source/origin of the orientation. This gives useful semantic meaning to the otherwise bare string parameters. However, it does not specify identifier format (e.g., gene symbol vs. UniProt ID) or validation rules, so it is not fully comprehensive but adequate for basic usage.

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 function: returning the interaction(s) between two named proteins, oriented from `a`. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('interaction between two proteins'), and differentiates from a sibling by explaining why this tool is preferred over pulling get_protein. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other tools.

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 explicitly gives a usage case: 'Use this for "what does A do to B" in one call' and points to an alternative (get_protein) as a less efficient method. However, it does not mention other closely related siblings like get_interaction or list_interactions, so the guidance is not exhaustive. It provides clear context and a reason to use this tool, but lacks exclusions for all alternatives.

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