get_analysis_not_found

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type (Dict {count, notFound}) and the dependency on a valid token, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, nor does it describe error handling or rate limits. The verb 'List' implies safety but does not make it explicit.

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 compact, well-structured docstring with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence conveys necessary information and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the core function, parameters, and return value, which is sufficient for a list-like tool without an output schema. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'count' represents (total unmapped vs. page count) and doesn't detail the inner structure of 'notFound'. This is a minor gap, but overall the tool is well-described.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter: token's origin, page's zero-based numbering, and page_size's role as identifiers per page. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, adding significant value.

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 begins with 'List the submitted identifiers that did not map to any Reactome entity,' which is a specific verb (list) plus a clear resource and scope. It distinctly identifies what the tool does and is not tautological. The resource ('submitted identifiers that did not map') makes it stand out from sibling tools like get_analysis_results.

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 states the token is 'returned by analyze_identifiers,' which provides a clear prerequisite and implies the tool is used after running an analysis. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The guidance is present but not deeply prescriptive.

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