get_sequence

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real substance: the return is FASTA, it also reports residue-number alignment and chain breaks, and it warns that PDB numbering rarely starts at 1. It does not cover behavior on a missing object or unloaded structure, so it stops short of 5.

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 the core action and output format in the first sentence, then justifies the secondary outputs. The third sentence is explanatory rationale rather than instruction, which is slightly indulgent but still earns its place by explaining why the numbering/gap data matters.

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 values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully names the two extra pieces of information returned. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/failure behavior is unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the chain default of null meaning all chains. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Returns the amino-acid sequence of a loaded structure") plus the output format (FASTA), which no sibling tool name suggests. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like structure_info or list_chains, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the explanation of why the numbering/gap output matters, which gives context for reaching for this tool over raw atom listings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no named alternative such as structure_info for non-sequence metadata.

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