comp_intx_comp_intx_hetcode_8fee3085

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the counts are aggregated across all PDB structures and grouped by interaction type, i.e. the result is a summary rather than raw per-structure hits. It does not address result size, pagination, or why idempotentHint is false for what reads as a deterministic aggregation.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (aggregated interaction counts for a chemical component) is front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence productively fills in the return shape rather than padding.

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 carries the burden of describing the return and does so reasonably: frequency of ligand-atom-to-residue interactions, grouped by interaction type. For a single-parameter read-only aggregation tool that is nearly complete, though it omits any sense of result granularity or size.

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% for the single 'hetcode' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only weakly re-frames the parameter by saying the results are derived from structures 'containing the given chemical component'; it adds no lookup semantics, format, or case-sensitivity 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 ('Returns aggregated interaction counts for protein-ligand interactions') and defines the data scope ('derived from all PDB structures containing the given chemical component'). It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as comp_intx_proteins_comp_unip_hetcode or ligand_sum, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of exclusions, and no named alternative. The closest thing to context is the scope note that results are aggregated over all PDB structures, which tells the agent what data is covered but not when to prefer this tool over the several sibling interaction/summary tools.

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