reactome_orthology

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

There are no annotations, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral details beyond the action of retrieving. It does not mention return format, potential errors, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 with no redundant words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without any filler.

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 simple two-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description provides a minimal but viable understanding of what the tool does. It tells the agent it returns orthologous events/entities for a species, but omits details about output format or common pitfalls. This is adequate for selection and invocation, but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'id' and 'species' adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already covers parameter meaning, so a baseline score 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 'Get orthologous events or entities in a different species' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('orthologous events or entities') with a scope ('in a different species'). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like reactome_compare_species or reactome_get_entity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies its use when orthologs across species are needed, but does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria. No context such as 'use this instead of X' is provided.

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