STRING: Interaction Network

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it resolves loci via UniProt, returns first-neighbor partners with combined STRING score plus per-channel sub-scores. This goes beyond 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 three sentences long, each carrying distinct and valuable information: tool purpose, input handling, and output details. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately highlights key output features (first-neighbor partners, scores) without needing to enumerate fields. It covers input resolution, organism specification, and default settings, making it self-contained for an API 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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds further meaning by explaining the resolution of locus identifiers and the flexible organism specification (slug, name, taxid), which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 fetches protein-protein interaction partners from STRING-DB, specifying input types (UniProt accession or locus identifier) and default organism. It is specific and actionable, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools that also provide interaction data (e.g., bar_aiv_interactions, experimental_interactions), which keeps it from a 5.

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 input requirements and how to specify organism, including resolution of locus IDs. However, it provides no guidance on when to use STRING-DB versus alternative interaction sources, nor any conditions under which this tool is preferred or should be avoided.

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