biogrid_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully states that the output includes experimental evidence and publication references, setting expectations beyond just 'interactions'. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or the effect of search_type, but these are minor for a straightforward search tool.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then gives useful input and output expectations, so 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?

An output schema is present, so return values do not need explanation, but the description omits search_type behavior and gives no guidance for choosing among close sibling tools. A minimal call can still be constructed from the required search_name guidance, so it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing schema documentation. It explains search_name reasonably well with gene examples like BRCA1 and TP53, but it never mentions search_type or what values it accepts. One of the two parameters remains effectively undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names a specific resource ('protein interaction data from BioGRID database'), and it clarifies the expected output. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling biogrid_gene_interactions, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'from BioGRID database' gives clear contextual context and implies this tool is for BioGRID interaction queries. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like string_interactions or intact_interactions, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance.

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