get_uniprot_interaction_partners_api_uniprot_interaction_par

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (names, antibody roles, PDB structures, self-directed interactions), providing behavioral context beyond safety annotations. 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 two straightforward sentences with no superfluous information. Every part conveys essential details about the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool has a single required parameter, no output schema, and read-only nature, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (names, annotations, PDB structures, self-directed flag). No gaps.

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. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (both mention 'UniProt accession'). Baseline 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'interaction partners for a given UniProt accession,' listing specific included data (names, antibody roles, PDB structures, self-directed). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on annotations, structures, variation, etc.

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 usage for obtaining structural and functional context of protein interactions but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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