reactome_interactor_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'curated interactions' and 'summary', but doesn't explain what the summary contains, whether pagination applies, or any output format. This is a significant gap for a look-up tool.

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?

One concise sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification; the single sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity one might argue minimal text is enough, but with no output schema or annotations, the description doesn't clarify what a 'summary' returns. Sibling tools offer many similarly named summaries, so more context is needed to be complete.

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 single parameter 'accession' is already fully described in the schema as 'Protein accession' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('summary of curated interactions for a protein'). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like reactome_static_interactors or reactome_psicquic_summary.

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 the many interactor-related siblings. The description implies use for curated interaction summaries but doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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