unip_gen_annot_unip_annot_unip_acc_16305178

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value beyond them by detailing what the response actually contains (sequence/length, residue ranges in both UniProt and PDB numbering, PDB entries, scores, confidence, links, processed start positions) — important because there is no output schema.

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 purpose and filter are front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining length is spent on return-value detail that is justified by the absence of an output schema. It is somewhat dense, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned record structure in detail. The main remaining gap is the unfiltered/unenumerated annotation_category values, which an agent may need to supply meaningfully.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the fact that annotation_category is an optional filter, but it does not enumerate valid categories or clarify accepted values beyond the bare schema label.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: provides PDBe-KB annotations for a given UniProt accession, with optional category filtering. This clearly separates it from structure-oriented siblings (e.g., sec_struct, bind_sites), but it does not distinguish itself from other UniProt annotation siblings such as unip_var, unip_gen_unipdb, or llm_unip_sum, so an agent could still hesitate between them.

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 per-accession and optional-category context implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many UniProt/annotation siblings. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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