get_compound_interaction_api_compound_interaction__hetcode__

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description confirms it is a safe read operation. It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the aggregation mechanism and the output format (grouped by interaction type). No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but the description is sufficient.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then specifies the output content efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the aggregated data well. It mentions the source (all PDB structures), the granularity (ligand atom to residue), and the grouping (by interaction type). It does not compare with siblings, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'hetcode' with a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Returns'), the resource ('aggregated interaction counts'), and the scope ('derived from all PDB structures containing the given chemical component'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it focuses on protein-ligand interaction counts per residue and interaction type, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 like get_compound_intx_proteins or get_similar_ligands. It does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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