rcsb_seqcoord_annotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it fetches features and that filters can restrict results, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or handling of invalid IDs. It does not contradict annotations and provides some useful context beyond them.

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 well-structured docstring: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args list. No wasted words; each parameter explanation is minimal yet complete, and the first line front-loads the tool's purpose.

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 exists, the description needn't explain return values. It covers all essential invocation details: required parameters, optional parameters, constraints, and examples. The tool's scope ('for one sequence') is stated, and the combination of parameter semantics and annotations makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates. It explains every parameter with clear meaning: query_id with concrete examples, reference as the coordinate system, sources as provenance, seq_range with 1-based bounds, filters with field/operation/value structure, and fields as a GraphQL override. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('positional sequence annotations for one sequence'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like alignments or group annotations. The scope is explicit ('for one sequence'), which differentiates it from group-oriented tools.

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 usage context (fetching features for a single sequence, with optional region filters and provenance selection) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rcsb_seqcoord_group_annotations or alignments. There is no mention of excluded cases or alternative tools.

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