metabolic.id_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It thoroughly discloses the mapping backends (MetaNetX, gene table, MyGene), the output structure ({authority, confidence, matched_by}), and confidence levels. This goes well beyond basic functionality.

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 verbose but efficient, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

The description covers mapping processes and output format but lacks details on input formatting, error handling, and unmappable IDs. Given five parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. While it explains the mapping logic for each entity type, it does not specify input formats (e.g., string formatting, delimiters) or the role of the session_id parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 it reconciles identifiers to canonical ids for metabolites/reactions (via MetaNetX MNXref) and genes (via Entrez id space). It specifies the verb 'reconcile' and resource 'identifiers to canonical ids', accurately distinguishing it from siblings like namespace.reconcile.

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 explains when to use the tool ('so the pipeline never relies on the LLM guessing an accession') and what it does for different entity types. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear.

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