get_uniprot_generic_interface_residues_api_uniprot_interface

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the analysis capabilities but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or error handling. With annotations covering the main safety aspect, the description provides adequate but not exceptional transparency.

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, front-loading the main purpose and providing essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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 input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: input, output content (array of residue details), and additional information like starting position. It lacks details on error responses or specific output format, but for a straightforward tool it is nearly 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% with a description for uniprot_accession. The description adds value by explaining what the response includes (sequence, length, residue-level details, starting position), going beyond the schema to help the agent understand the output context.

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 retrieves detailed information on interface residues for a given UniProt accession, specifying what is included (amino acid sequence, total sequence length, residue-level details). It uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other aspects (e.g., sequences, ligands, annotations).

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. It only describes what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites, limitations, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over siblings.

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