get_best_structures_observed_api_uniprot_best_structures__un

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

The description discloses the ranking criterion (quality score) and lists the output fields, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate read-only safety. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or empty results.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and lists output details efficiently. No redundant phrases.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the return structure (fields listed) and ranking logic. Minor gaps include ordering direction and default result count, but overall 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?

The parameter 'uniprot_accession' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states it provides a ranked list of PDB structures mapped to a UniProt accession based on an internal quality score. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_best_non_overlapping_structures_observed' implicitly by name, but does not explicitly mention overlapping vs non-overlapping.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the non-overlapping variant or other mapping tools. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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