biogrid_gene_interactions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the output type (interaction partners with experimental evidence and detection methods) but does not mention read-only nature explicitly, potential for large result sets, rate limits, or error behavior. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but more transparency would be ideal.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, input requirements, and output summary with no filler. The key statement is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and output sufficiently. It does not address edge cases or alternative sibling tools, but the essential information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: gene_symbol with an example (TP53) and organism with a default/example (9606=human). This goes beyond the raw schema and clarifies parameter meaning and format.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('protein interactions for a specific gene symbol from BioGRID'), which is more specific than a generic interaction query. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'biogrid_interactions', so it falls short of 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 gives clear usage context: provide a gene symbol, optionally an organism ID, and receive interaction partners. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the input/output guidance is explicit enough to select it for gene-centric BioGRID queries.

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