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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload is a broad metadata bundle, but says nothing about what happens on an unknown accession, whether member-database vs InterPro accessions take different paths, or that responses can be large.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned-fields clause as secondary detail. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still gives a useful inventory of the payload sections. Only the edge-case behavior (bad accession, cross-database accession handling) is left unstated.

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 accession format, the sourceDatabase slug with prefix inference, and the thumbnail cost. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('one InterPro or member-database entry') and enumerates what comes back (description, hierarchy, signatures, GO terms, etc.). It does not name or contrast with siblings like interpro_search_entries or interpro_get_clan, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 word 'one' plus the required accession param implies single-record lookup rather than search, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus interpro_search_entries or interpro_get_clan, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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