get_target_interactions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds minimal behavioral context ('from curated databases') but does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering mechanics, or any caveats. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, clean sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval operation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with six parameters and no schema-level descriptions. It omits guidance on pagination, threshold filtering, source database selection, and the optional fields parameter, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly beyond the required ensembl_id.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides almost no parameter information. The phrase 'for a target' hints at ensembl_id, but fields, page_size, page_index, score_threshold, and source_database are left unexplained, forcing the agent to rely solely on property names 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 specifies the action (Retrieve) and resource (protein interaction partners for a target), and the phrase 'from curated databases' distinguishes it from other target-focused tools like get_target_info or get_target_associated_diseases. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implicitly suggests use when needing interaction partners for a target, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like get_interaction_resources. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings.

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