get_interaction_resources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description adds no additional behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, or side effects. For a simple enumeration tool with an output schema, the minimal disclosure is acceptable but not richer.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameters, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description is adequate for its simplicity. The only minor gap is a slight ambiguity about what 'interaction databases' specifically includes, but this is likely resolved by the output schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but does clarify that the tool enumerates interaction databases, which provides the context for what the output will contain.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'enumerate' with a clear object ('interaction databases integrated into Open Targets'), which unambiguously differentiates this tool from sibling tools that query specific entities like diseases, drugs, targets, or variants. It states both the action and the resource.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. However, the purpose of enumerating interaction databases implies a discovery use case, and the tool is clearly distinct from the entity-specific siblings, so the usage context is partially implied.

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