analyze_identifiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly. It discloses that identifiers are submitted to an external service, explains the projection behavior, lists all filtering and pagination options, and details the return structure including token, warnings, and identifiersNotFound. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and sets clear expectations.

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 well-structured with a strong opening summary, an Args list, and a Returns block. It is somewhat long due to the detailed parameter explanations, but every sentence earns its place given the 8 parameters and missing annotations. The front-loaded purpose sentence ensures immediate clarity.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the full request/response lifecycle, including token-based pagination, and provides the exact shape of the returned dict. This makes the tool usable without any external documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters, and it does. Every parameter (identifiers, projection, species, sort_by, p_value, page_size, page, include_interactors) receives a meaningful explanation with types, defaults, and examples. This fully overcomes the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run pathway over-representation analysis on a gene/protein list.' It clearly states the function and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_analysis_results, which retrieves previously submitted analyses, by emphasizing submission to Reactome and returning a token for later reuse.

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 clear usage context: it explains submission to the Reactome AnalysisService and explicitly directs users to 'Reuse the returned token with get_analysis_results to page/sort/filter without re-submitting.' This names an alternative tool and implies when to use each, though it does not include an explicit 'when not to use' list.

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