reactome_mapping_pathways

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention whether this is a read-only lookup, what happens for unmapped identifiers, whether it returns multiple pathways, or any other behavioral traits. This is a notable omission.

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, but it is under-specified. It is not verbose, yet it lacks necessary detail to fully guide an agent. It earns its place as a clear statement of purpose but leaves out important usage and behavioral context.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool is not adequately described for an agent to understand return values, failure modes, or how it fits with siblings. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the large sibling set, the description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (resource and identifier) documented descriptively. The description itself adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, but the schema already handles parameter meaning adequately, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('an external identifier to Reactome pathways'), which is clear and differentiates from sibling tools like reactome_mapping_reactions (reactions) and reactome_pathways_for_entity (likely Reactome entities). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, so it doesn't fully distinguish.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like reactome_pathways_for_entity, reactome_interactor_pathways, and reactome_analyze_identifier, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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