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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default taxon/review status, and the important caveat that isFragment=false does not prove a complete canonical sequence. Pagination and clamping behavior are left to the schema.

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?

Three front-loaded, dense sentences with no filler; the default scope is stated first. Minor redundancy with the isFragment schema description keeps it from a 5.

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 an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations present, the description need only cover intent and defaults, which it does. The only gap is that it does not route the agent to the complement sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the reviewedOnly and isFragment semantics rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find UniProt proteins carrying an InterPro or member signature.' This clearly sets the domain-to-protein direction, which implicitly differentiates it from the reverse-direction sibling interpro_get_protein_domains, but no sibling is named.

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?

It establishes the default operating scope ('Defaults to reviewed human proteins') and explains the reviewedOnly=false alternative, which gives useful usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over interpro_get_entry or interpro_get_protein_domains, nor any exclusion conditions.

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