alphafold_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly presents this as a read-only lookup operation, explicitly stating the return payload and the 200M+ protein coverage. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but for a simple query tool the disclosed behavior is adequate and useful.

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 main verb and resource, and communicates essential information in a compact bilingual format. The Chinese/English repetition adds mild redundancy, but it does not obscure the meaning or bloat the description excessively.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter query tool with an output schema available, so the description need not detail every return field. It gives the access point, output categories, and data scope, which is largely complete. The main absence is explicit guidance relative to sibling structure tools, but that is a minor gap.

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 only names the parameter 'Uniprot Acc' with no description, so the description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a UniProt accession. It lacks an explicit format or example, but the required identifier type is clear and sufficient for a knowledgeable agent.

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 specifies the action ('Query'), the resource ('AlphaFold DB'), and the expected result fields (pLDDT confidence, sequence length, PDB download link). This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like pdb_structure_summary because it explicitly names AlphaFold DB and the returned confidence metric.

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 the intended use case: given a UniProt accession, retrieve AlphaFold-predicted structure data. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as pdb_structure_summary, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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