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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing segmentation behavior: results are returned as whole-match segments within a response budget, the first segment carries protein metadata, extra features follow the last match, and coverage.nextCursor is followed until hasMore is false. It also states that all locations and discontinuous fragments are preserved, which tells the agent not to expect collapsed coordinates.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and tail-loaded with pagination mechanics. The final sentence is dense and long but every clause conveys distinct information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values, and it covers the one thing the schema cannot: how large results are segmented and how to continue. Combined with complete parameter coverage and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and iterate correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured fields. The description reinforces the residue-filter meaning and restates includeExtraFeatures placement, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline holds.

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 ('Retrieve InterPro and member-signature matches on a canonical UniProt protein') with the direction of the mapping made explicit, which distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling interpro_find_proteins_by_domain. It does not name that sibling directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Use conditions are only implied through optional behaviors ('retain matches covering a residue', 'include extra predicted features'). No sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-not guidance, though the required-accession framing makes the entry point reasonably obvious.

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