ThaleMine: Experimental Interactions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: aggregation of ThaleMine rows into one entry per partner, ordering by evidence_count, error behavior for unknown loci (NotFoundError), and organism restriction. 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?

The description is detailed but front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains two paragraphs with necessary specifics (aggregation, sources, error cases). Slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value; no redundant fluff.

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 complexity of the tool (aggregation, multiple source databases, error conditions, organism restriction), the description covers all aspects: what is returned, how results are ordered, what found=false means, and organism limitation. Output schema exists, so return format details not needed. Very complete.

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 covers 100%, but description adds context: loci format example ('AT5G11260 (HY5)'), organism default value, and that ThaleMine only supports Arabidopsis. This adds meaning beyond the schema definition.

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 action ('Fetch CURATED EXPERIMENTAL protein/genetic interaction partners'), the resource ('ThaleMine'), the organism ('Arabidopsis'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (string_interactions, bar_aiv_interactions) by emphasizing experimental provenance and curation.

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 contrasts with sibling tools: 'Unlike string_interactions (predicted / text-mined, scored) and bar_aiv_interactions (which returns GRN paper references...), every partner here carries the actual experimental provenance.' It also clarifies when the tool returns no results (found=false) and restricts to Arabidopsis, setting clear usage boundaries.

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