togoid_getRelation

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a single-hop pairwise check, returns a JSON string of an array with specific fields (forward, reverse, description), and an empty array means no route exists. No behavioral traits are hidden, and the description is transparent about input and output.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, followed by usage guidance in a separate paragraph, and a dedicated sentence about the return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and no information is redundant.

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 has 2 parameters (both described), no annotations, and an output schema (the description already explains the return format), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, addressing all needed context for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Although the schema already defines source and target as strings, the description adds value by providing example values (e.g., 'uniprot', 'pdb'), explaining they are database keys, and contrasting with convertId's route parameter. This enrichment justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 checks if a specific ID conversion route exists and gets details. It specifies the action (check existence and get details), the resource (conversion route), and the scope (single-hop, pairwise). This distinguishes it from siblings like convertId which uses a different parameter format and likely a broader scope.

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 advises using this tool before calling convertId to verify route availability, and contrasts the parameter structure (two separate args vs. comma-joined route). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, referencing a sibling tool directly.

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