Consolidate Binding Sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it is 'the heaviest tool — downloads several coordinate files,' implying cost/latency, and it clusters pockets by residue overlap rather than returning raw sites. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, but the cost signal is a real value-add.

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-loads what the tool does, then mechanics, then input guidance, in three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers purpose, cost, and ID selection adequately for a fan-out aggregation tool. The remaining gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter and the absence of any explicit alternative-selection rule against GetBindingSites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains uniprot_id vs pdb_id and marks uniprot_id as preferred, which is useful, but it never explains the third parameter `limit` (apparently the number of top structures) nor the mutual exclusivity of the two ID options. Two of three parameters get meaning; one is left fully undocumented.

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 ('Map the union of binding pockets across all structures of a target') and explicitly names the sibling it builds on ('Fans out GetBindingSites'), so an agent can distinguish aggregation from the single-structure lookup. The clustering-consensus concept (recurrent vs one-off pockets) sharpens the purpose further.

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 concrete input selection guidance ('Provide uniprot_id (preferred) or pdb_id') and implicitly frames the tool as the multi-structure consensus counterpart to GetBindingSites. However, it never states the exclusion condition explicitly (e.g. use GetBindingSites instead when you only need a single structure), so the when-not is left to inference.

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