Get AlphaFold Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific outputs (per-residue stats, download URLs) and providing confidence thresholds, which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding interpretive context (confidence thresholds). Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 explains what is returned (stats and URLs) and how to interpret pLDDT scores. It covers the main behavioral aspects given the rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent). However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., missing accession) or response format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (uniprot_accession and model_version). The description does not elaborate on parameter syntax or behavior but implies the output depends on the accession. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 AlphaFold predicted structure data, including per-residue pLDDT confidence statistics and download URLs for PDB/mmCIF formats. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like predict_structure_boltz2, which generates structures rather than retrieving existing ones.

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 provides confidence thresholds (pLDDT ≥90, 70–90, <50) to aid interpretation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like predict_structure_boltz2 (for predictions) or other retrieval tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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