ensembl_protein_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Get' but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get protein-level features, domains, and annotations') without any unnecessary words or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and structure, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context, which are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description lacks sufficient detail for full contextual understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resources 'protein-level features, domains, and annotations for proteins and translations', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like ensembl_feature_overlap or ensembl_sequence, which might also retrieve features or sequences, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as which sibling tools might be better for different types of data (e.g., ensembl_variation for variants or ensembl_sequence for sequences). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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