bc_get_interpro_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors. It clearly states that the tool returns metadata and optionally includes interactions, pathways, and cross-references based on parameters. It also mentions an error message in the return dict. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or rate limits, it sufficiently describes the tool's operation and output for an agent to understand its effects.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short bulleted return list. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and resource, the second adds context about member databases, and the returns section is clearly formatted. Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately covers return values with a high-level summary. It describes the main fields (name, type, description, member databases, optional extras, error message). For a tool with 4 parameters and no nested objects, this is sufficiently complete. Minor omissions like error handling details are acceptable.

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%, so description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. The description mentions optional inclusions (interactions, pathways, cross-references) which correspond to the boolean parameters, but this information is already present in the schema descriptions. No deeper semantics or usage tips are provided.

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 gets InterPro entry details for families, domains, or functional sites, and specifies the resource (InterPro entry) and action (get). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool bc_search_interpro_entries which is for searching, making the purpose specific and unique.

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 implies use when a specific InterPro ID is known to retrieve metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bc_search_interpro_entries. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided, leaving usage context largely implied.

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