Check Conservation

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail: non-conserved positions are flagged per species individually, default species and ordering behavior, and interpretation thresholds. It does not address failure modes such as missing ortholog sequence or invalid residue positions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its translatability rationale, then thresholds, then parameter guidance. Mostly every sentence earns its place, though the macaque superiority aside is slightly digressive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting is not required, and the description adequately covers inputs, defaults, and how to read results. Remaining gaps are edge cases (invalid positions, species without orthologs) rather than core guidance.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: uniprot_id is identified as the human accession, residue_positions must come from GetBindingSites, and the species parameter's value domain ('mouse', 'rat', 'cynomolgus'), default, and restrict/reorder behavior are supplied even though the schema has no enum. Residue numbering convention (UniProt vs. structure numbering) is left ambiguous.

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 ('check conservation at binding site residues') with an explicit scope (mouse, rat, cynomolgus). It is clearly separable from siblings such as CheckKnownVariants or CharacterizeTarget, and it names GetBindingSites as the upstream source of its inputs.

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?

Gives a clear context and motivation (preclinical translatability) plus a prerequisite chain ('residue positions from GetBindingSites'). It also prescribes what to do at each conservation band. It stops short of naming alternatives to use when conservation is poor or when a different check is wanted.

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