reactome_psicquic_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the tool's action without disclosing any behavioral details, such as required input formats, output structure, pagination, or potential errors. This adds no value beyond the name.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy to parse, though slightly minimal.

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 and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'detailed' means, what the response contains, or any prerequisites like available PSICQUIC resources. It leaves the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantics about the parameters, but it doesn't need to given the schema's thoroughness.

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 as 'detailed protein-protein interactions from a PSICQUIC resource'. The word 'detailed' contrasts with the sibling tool 'reactome_psicquic_summary', clearly differentiating the two.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reactome_psicquic_summary or static_interactors. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be preferred.

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