ebi-pdbe-unip_ipuipu_acc_09a395ae

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 meaningful context about the payload shape (partner names, antibody-role annotations, PDB structures, self-directed flag), which tells the agent what kind of data comes back. It does not address the unusual idempotentHint=false for a pure retrieval, nor pagination, response size, or error behavior.

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 the verb and resource, with the output enumeration immediately following. The trailing sentence ('This endpoint provides structural and functional context...') is largely filler that restates the value proposition rather than adding operational 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it explains both the input concept and the fields returned, which is the main thing an agent cannot infer without an output schema. Missing are sibling disambiguation and any note on result volume or limits.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'uniprot_accession'. The description adds no format guidance (e.g., accepted accession patterns, isoform handling) beyond restating that the input is a UniProt accession, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('interaction partners for a given UniProt accession'), and it enumerates what the result contains (partner names, antibody-role annotations, observed PDB structures, self-interaction flag). It does not, however, contrast itself with sibling tools such as ebi-pdbe-unip_giruiru_acc or ebi-pdbe-comp_intx_proteins, which also take UniProt accessions and deal with interactions, so the agent gets no help disambiguating.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many unip_* and comp_intx_* siblings, and no stated prerequisites. The only implicit signal is that this is the partner-lookup endpoint for a UniProt accession.

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