reactome_get_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns 'detailed information' without describing the response structure, error handling for invalid IDs, or whether the operation is read-only. It does not contradict any annotations (there are none), but it reveals very little beyond the basic action.

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, focused sentence with no waste, clearly front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could have included a brief note about return format without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain expected return values, but it only says 'detailed information'—vague and unhelpful for an agent attempting to invoke or interpret results. It also doesn't mention behavior for missing entities or pagination. The absence of such details makes it incomplete for a tool with zero structured context beyond the schema.

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 describes the 'id' parameter well, including a format example (R-HSA-123456) and the fact it can be a database ID, giving 100% schema coverage. The description merely restates 'by its Reactome ID' and adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without enhancing it.

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 'Get detailed information about a physical entity' by its Reactome ID, specifying the verb, resource type, and lookup method with helpful examples (protein, complex, compound). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reactome_get_pathway, so it falls short of a 5.

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 for retrieving entity details when you have a Reactome ID, which is a clear context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as reactome_participants or reactome_entity_component_of, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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