alphafold_plddt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the premium/API-key auth requirement, a 24-hour disk cache, and that refresh=True forces a live fetch. It does not describe return contents, but an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the auth and caching constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a read-only fetch tool with an output schema covering returns, the description supplies auth requirements, caching semantics, and parameter meaning. It is nearly complete; only the sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 must compensate, and it does: 'for a UniProt accession' gives the accession parameter concrete meaning, and 'refresh=True forces a live fetch' explains the refresh boolean's effect. This is meaningful semantic coverage over a bare schema.

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+resource: fetching the AlphaFold DB model for a UniProt accession and summarizing its pLDDT confidence profile. This is clear and specific, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling plddt_summary, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

There is a prerequisite hint (premium tool, API key required) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The overlapping sibling plddt_summary is never mentioned, so the agent must infer which tool to pick when both could apply.

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