bc_get_reactome_info_by_identifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a dict with API response or error, which is helpful. However, it omits critical details such as idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the API call (GET vs POST). The focus is heavily on parameters rather than behavior.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by an Args section. However, the Args section is a verbose list that largely duplicates the schema's property descriptions, making it longer than necessary. Every sentence could be more concise; for example, the parameter details could be summarized or omitted given the schema.

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 complexity (15 parameters, 1 required) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter details. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, does not explain error handling beyond 'error information', and misses behavioral constraints. The output schema may cover return structure, but the description's contextual gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions almost verbatim without adding new semantic information beyond the usage tip about species. While it lists all parameters, it does not provide deeper meaning or contextualize parameter interactions beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool queries the Reactome API identifier endpoint to retrieve pathways for a given identifier, using a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('Reactome API identifier endpoint'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bc_query_kegg (different database) and bc_get_string_id, as it targets Reactome pathways.

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 advises to always provide the species parameter for correct results, which is a useful usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., bc_query_kegg for KEGG pathways). This limits guidance for an agent choosing among similar tools.

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