get_protein_interactions

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

The description lacks details on behavioral aspects such as external data source dependency (STRING database), rate limits, or caching. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but only states a vague 'shows' without operational context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or error handling, which would be beneficial for an agent. However, for a simple data retrieval tool, it is minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters (protein, species, limit, score_threshold). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 retrieves a protein-protein interaction network from STRING for a given protein. It is specific but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_interaction_network' which may have similar functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_interaction_network) or when not to use it. There are no contextual hints about prerequisites or limitations.

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