reactome_participating_physical_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only molecules directly involved in reactions are returned, implying exclusion of nested components. However, it does not disclose any side effects (though likely read-only), pagination, or limitations, leaving some gaps in expected behavior.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids redundancy and every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the main function but does not describe the response format or clarify how it differs from similar-sounding tools in the environment, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between options.

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 input schema already provides a description for 'id' as 'Event stable ID or database ID', and the tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reiterating the event context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 clear resource ('physical entities participating in an event'), with a parenthetical clarification ('molecules directly involved in reactions') that disambiguates the scope. It distinguishes itself from broader tools like reactome_get_entity by focusing on participants of a single event.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reactome_participants' or 'reactome_entity_component_of'. It does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or contextual scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and purpose.

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