protein_domains

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 input and output types, but does not disclose data source updates, error behavior, rate limits, or other operational characteristics. The bilingual text adds no behavioral detail beyond what is already stated.

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 reasonably compact, but the English and Chinese sentences are near-duplicates, adding length without new information. The front-loaded English sentence is clear, but the repetition could be trimmed.

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 output schema and single required parameter, the description is adequate for basic use, but it lacks richer context such as the meaning of domain types, example accessions, or how results integrate with other protein-focused tools. Some gaps remain for an agent navigating a large sibling set.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does specify the parameter format (UniProt accession) and the output semantics (domain name, type, position). With only one parameter, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb (query) and resource (protein structural domains from InterPro), and specifies the input (UniProt accession) and output (domain name/type/location). It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related protein tools, but the InterPro domain focus is distinctive.

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 for functional region analysis but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives like uniprot_annotate or protein_tissue_expression, nor mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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