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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing cursor paging and that results are summaries rather than full records. It leaves page-size clamping and filter-invariance rules 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 short sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action followed by the two constraint notes and the follow-up pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 and annotations handle the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete; it covers paging and the follow-up path. It omits the browse behavior (query omitted) and the limit clamp, both of which live only in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description still adds genuine cross-parameter semantics by stating that GO filters require sourceDatabase=interpro and that integratedInto requires a member sourceDatabase. That constraint would otherwise be invisible to an agent.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and two distinct resources ('Search InterPro entries or member signatures'), which lets an agent tell it apart from interpro_get_entry or interpro_find_proteins_by_domain. It also names the sibling to use for detail lookups.

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 states concrete selection conditions — GO filters require sourceDatabase interpro, integratedInto targets member signatures — and routes to interpro_get_entry when full metadata is needed. It doesn't explicitly cover when to prefer interpro_find_proteins_by_domain, but the alternatives it does name are actionable.

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