Get Protein Features

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. The description adds behavioral details: features use FALDO coordinates, secondary-structure features are hidden by default and disclosed under excluded_secondary_structure, and filter behavior for zero matches. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently explains filtering and default behaviors. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted in context), the description covers all necessary aspects: coordinate system, feature types, filtering, secondary structure handling, and the signature. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaning: for feature_types, it explains that each returned type round-trips to the filter vocabulary and describes the zero-match filter behavior. For include_secondary_structure, it clarifies that secondary structure is hidden by default. The signature line also provides a quick overview.

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 returns sequence features with coordinates, listing many specific feature types (domains, regions, PTMs, etc.). It uses strong verbs ('Return') and names the resource ('features for an entry'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_protein_sequence or get_protein.

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 tells how to use the tool: filter by feature_types, set include_secondary_structure, and notes that secondary structure is hidden by default. It provides context for filtering behavior ('zero-match filter echoes accepted keys'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for retrieving protein data, though siblings are listed separately.

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