reactome_entity_component_of

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states the general purpose and examples ('complexes, sets'), but does not mention whether results are transitive, what output format to expect, or any edge cases. This is a significant gap for a read tool without an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core behavior without unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks context on what the output might look like (no output schema) and how it differs from similar siblings. Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, a score of 3 is fair—it is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Entity stable ID or database ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, just restates the entity relationship. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Find larger structures (complexes, sets) that contain this entity as a component.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'reactome_complexes_containing', which appears to overlap in functionality.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reactome_complexes_containing' or 'reactome_pathways_for_entity'. With many sibling tools, the description should clarify the intended use case or distinguish it from other containment queries.

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