get_compound_intx_proteins_api_compound_uniprot__hetcode__ge

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it returns UniProt metadata, but lacks details on pagination, error conditions, or scope. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate added context.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could be more specific about the structure (e.g., includes PDB entry IDs, chain IDs, UniProt accession), but it is sufficient for a straightforward query tool.

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% with a single parameter (hetcode) minimally described as 'Hetcode for the compound'. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource 'protein chains in PDB entries that interact with the given chemical component and are mapped to UniProt, including associated UniProt metadata'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_compound_in_pdb (general compound info) and get_compound_interaction (interaction details).

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 implies use when needing protein chains interacting with a compound and their UniProt metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_compound_in_pdb or get_compound_interaction. No exclusions or context provided.

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