reactome_pathway_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the search behavior and the fields returned, which is helpful. It does not mention details like matching semantics, species filtering behavior, result limiting, or error conditions, but for a read-only search tool this is an acceptable baseline.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The bilingual repetition adds a little redundancy, but the sentence with examples and return fields is information-dense and 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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, query examples, and return fields. It is incomplete regarding parameter nuances such as species identification, result count behavior, and how this tool compares to related pathway searches like kegg_pathway_search.

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 provide strong semantics for the query parameter by specifying it accepts pathway names or biological processes and gives examples. However, the species and max_results parameters are not explained beyond their schema titles and default values, leaving a clear gap.

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 states the tool searches Reactome biological pathways and names the returned fields (stId/name/species/summation). It is specific about the resource and the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar pathway tools such as kegg_pathway_search.

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: users should input a pathway name or biological process, with concrete examples like apoptosis, glycolysis, and DNA repair. It explains that the tool is intended for signal transduction and metabolic pathway research. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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