reactome_pathways_for_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'lower-level pathways', which hints at a hierarchy but does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, how not-found entities are handled, or what the response structure is. The effect of the 'all_forms' parameter is also not described.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, with the verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter query tool, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks crucial context: no output schema, no annotations, and no clear differentiation from the many related Reactome tools. The ambiguous term 'lower-level pathways' would benefit from clarification.

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 descriptions for both parameters (entity ID and all_forms). The description adds minor context by listing example entity types, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'all_forms' beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 action (Find) and resource (lower-level pathways) that contain a specific entity. It is specific about the input type (protein, gene, compound) but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like reactome_mapping_pathways or reactome_pathway_ancestors.

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 use case (when you have a known entity and want pathways that contain it), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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