intact_interactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a search operation and specifies the returned content types: interaction partners, detection method, and evidence. It also gives concrete identifier examples. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes a bilingual restatement that also adds the validation use case. Every part contributes useful information, and no filler or redundant schema details appear.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the query semantics, output contents, and an intended use scenario. It does not explicitly explain max_results or differentiate from other interaction-database siblings, but these are minor gaps given the output schema and simple nature of the tool.

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. It does clarify the query parameter with examples ('TP53', 'P04637') and maps it to gene or protein identifiers. However, max_results is not described at all; only its name and default value in the schema hint at its meaning. Thus the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter semantically under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search EBI IntAct experimentally-validated molecular interactions.' It clearly states what is returned—interacting partners, detection method, and evidence—and the qualifier 'experimentally-validated' helps distinguish it from predicted-interaction tools like string_interactions. The bilingual text reinforces the same precise purpose without ambiguity.

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 a clear use case: '用于验证蛋白互作网络' (for validating protein interaction networks), and specifies acceptable inputs such as gene symbols or UniProt IDs. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like string_interactions or biogrid_interactions, but the context is clear enough for basic tool selection.

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