best_soubsu_acc_11b902cf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the ranking basis (data quality, model quality, resolution) and enumerating the returned fields. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or handling of accessions with no mapped structures, which is a real gap for a lookup tool with no output 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ranking logic before the field inventory. The second sentence is a long enumeration, but given the absence of an output schema that detail earns its place rather than being 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies what each returned structure entry contains, including coverage and alignment segments. It stops short of covering edge cases (no results, very large result sets, ordering ties), which keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'the given UniProt accession' without adding format, validation, or multi-accession semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Provides a ranked list of PDB structures mapped to the given UniProt accession') and even states the ranking criterion, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely named siblings such as best_nosoubnosu_acc_bf133eee, which likely returns a complementary set of structures.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The mention that ranking is by an 'internal quality score' hints at why one would pick this over a raw structure lookup, but the agent must infer that, and nothing steers it between this tool and the many sibling mapping/annotation tools.

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