reactome_analysis_not_found

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The one-line description mentions only the basic purpose and does not disclose pagination behavior, token requirements, error handling, or the fact that results may be paginated via the page and page_size parameters. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that accesses analysis data.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words and effectively communicates the tool's core function. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (3 params, no output schema) and a clear description, so it is mostly complete. However, the description lacks contextual details such as the requirement of a prior analysis, the meaning of 'could not be mapped,' and the complementary relationship with found_entities. Given the sibling tools and the absence of annotations, a slightly richer description would be beneficial.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (token, page, page_size), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond the context of 'could not be mapped,' which is already implied. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters.

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's function: retrieving identifiers that could not be mapped in an analysis. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource ('list of identifiers') are explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reactome_analysis_found_entities, which presumably returns mapped identifiers.

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 implies the tool is used in the context of an analysis to retrieve unmapped identifiers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like reactome_analysis_found_entities. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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