get_best_non_overlapping_structures_observed_api_uniprot_bes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming it is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide; it does not disclose potential limitations, data sources, or expected data characteristics (e.g., number of chains, residue count).

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 a single, well-constructed sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose. However, lacking details about return format or fields might leave an AI agent slightly uncertain, but overall it is complete enough for typical use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a description that explains it. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states it retrieves a list of non-overlapping PDB chains maximizing observed residues for a given UniProt accession. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'non-overlapping PDB chains' are specific and distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'get_best_structures_observed' which likely returns overlapping best 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context about when non-overlapping chains are preferred or comparisons to other tools. No usage scenarios or exclusions are mentioned.

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