get_compound_intx_proteins_api_compound_uniprot__hetcode__ge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns protein chains with UniProt metadata, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. It adds some context but not beyond what annotations provide.

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 of 25 words that is front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous information, every word serves a purpose.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and annotations indicating read-only behavior, the description is mostly complete. It specifies what the tool returns. However, it does not mention pagination or result limits, which could be relevant for large datasets. Given the low complexity, this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'hetcode' described as 'Hetcode for the compound'. The tool description only refers to 'given chemical component', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 returns protein chains that interact with a given chemical component and are mapped to UniProt, including metadata. It specifies the verb (returns), resource (protein chains), and condition (interaction with chemical component), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_compound_interaction 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, when not to use it, or of alternative tools for different scenarios.

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