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 and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the aggregation logic across PDB structures and the grouping by residue and interaction type. No contradictions.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds specifics about the output. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return type (aggregated counts per residue per interaction type). It could be more explicit about the response structure, but for a simple one-parameter read tool it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'hetcode', with a brief description. The tool description does not add further meaning or examples about the parameter, so no extra value beyond the schema.

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 returns aggregated interaction counts for protein-ligand interactions, specifying the source (all PDB structures) and the output format (frequency per amino-acid residue grouped by interaction type). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_compound_intx_proteins or get_ligand_summary.

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 context but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to similar tools, though the purpose is clear enough to infer typical scenarios.

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