Analyze Structural Confidence (pLDDT + PAE)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the return being a summary (not per-residue) and the inclusion of a druggability pre-screen. It does not mention rate limits or authorization needs, but goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise, using bullet points for clarity and front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous or redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema (documenting return values), the description provides sufficient context for a one-parameter tool. It clarifies that the output is a summary, not per-residue, and includes the druggability component. Minor omission: no mention of limitations like species specificity or data source, but overall complete for the task.

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 input schema already provides a thorough description and pattern for the uniprot_id parameter, serving as a 100% description coverage despite the context indicating 0%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so it meets the baseline for schema-rich tools.

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 tool analyzes AlphaFold structural confidence using pLDDT and PAE, listing specific output components (pLDDT summary, PAE, druggability pre-screen). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like score_binding_pocket_geometry or detect_intrinsically_disordered.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify contexts where it should be avoided. There is no mention of prerequisites or when alternatives like compare_disease_target_overlap might be more appropriate.

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