get_event_participants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (Dict with count and participants), the grouping of PhysicalEntities with ReferenceEntities, and cross-reference types (UniProt/ChEBI). It lacks details on error handling or authentication needs, but for a read-only listing tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 succinct and well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure. It does not discuss edge cases or related tools, but for a straightforward lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and title, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'stable_id' is an 'Event stable id' and gives an example ('R-HSA-69620'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could further clarify how to obtain such an ID.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('physical entities that participate in a reaction or pathway'), making the tool's function clear. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_event_ancestors' or 'get_interactors' by focusing on event participants.

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 when to use the tool (when you need participants of a reaction/pathway) and provides a concrete example stable ID, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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