get_best_structures_observed_api_uniprot_best_structures__un

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds context about the internal quality scoring and output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that is relatively concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is somewhat long and could be broken into multiple sentences for clarity. No unnecessary details, but could be more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists the output fields and explains the ranking basis. It does not mention pagination or limits, but these may not be critical. Overall, it provides a good mental model of what the tool returns.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and only one parameter (uniprot_accession), the schema already fully documents the parameter. The tool description does not add extra semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool provides a ranked list of PDB structures for a given UniProt accession based on quality scores. It specifies the output includes identifiers and coverage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling get_best_non_overlapping_structures_observed_api_uniprot_bes, but the purpose is still specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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