ebi-pdbe-unip_gen_annot_unip_annot_unip_acc_16305178

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the response: sequence and length, residue ranges in UniProt and PDB numbering, associated PDB entries, scores, confidence levels, resource links, and processed protein start positions. It stops short of discussing rate limits, pagination, or authentication, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then explains the return content in a structured way. It is reasonably sized for a no-output-schema tool, though the final phrase about a unified view is somewhat promotional. Overall it is clear and mostly earns its length.

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?

The description covers the inputs and return shape in enough detail for a read-only retrieval tool without an output schema. However, it does not list valid annotation categories despite annotation_category having no enum, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation. It is adequate but not 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%, so both parameters are already documented structurally. The description restates that the call takes a UniProt accession and supports optional filtering by annotation category, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it provides PDBe-KB annotations for a given UniProt accession, with optional category filtering. It clearly describes the returned annotation records and metadata. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling UniProt-focused tools such as unip_var or unip_gen_unipdb, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description implies usage by naming the required UniProt accession and optional annotation-category filtering. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools. The usage context is therefore only implied.

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