Detect Intrinsically Disordered Regions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the proxy method (pLDDT < 50), validation, functional categories, and clinical relevance. No contradictions found.

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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to clinical relevance details, which could be trimmed. Overall, it earns its keep but could be slightly more concise.

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 one parameter, a robust output schema, and helpful annotations, the description provides complete context: it explains what IDRs are, how they are detected, the functional categories, and even clinical relevance. An agent can fully understand the tool's purpose and output without additional references.

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 already describes the single parameter 'uniprot_id' with a pattern and example. Although the schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the actual schema includes a description. The tool description adds no further information about the parameter, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Map') and resource ('intrinsically disordered regions using pLDDT as proxy'), and it details the method and categories (Linkers, Tails, Long IDRs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_structural_confidence', which focuses on general structural confidence rather than IDR detection.

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 mentions that the approach is 'the highest-throughput IDR detection method available for the full human proteome' and is validated by Ruff & Pappu (2021), implying it is the go-to tool for human proteome IDR detection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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