Find Evolutionary Structural Shifts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful interpretive context: the distances are exploratory, the GUDHI and geometric-proxy methods are distinguished per result, and there is deliberately no cross-method conservation ranking. This is valuable disclosure beyond the 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 compact and front-loads the core reporting purpose before adding important caveats about interpretation and method distinction. It is appropriately sized, though the line breaks split closely related caveats rather than organizing them into a more scannable structure.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the annotations cover safety and open-world behavior. However, for a specialized cross-species structural tool, the description is missing explicit usage routing and parameter guidance, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 description does not explain the required gene_symbol parameter or the optional target_species parameter, including the Ensembl naming expectation or the maxItems limit. Given the low schema description coverage signal, the description fails to compensate for parameter documentation gaps.

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 reporting purpose: ortholog sequence identity plus exploratory structural distances. It also clarifies that distances are not calibrated evolutionary, functional, binding, or cross-reactivity measures, which distinguishes it conceptually from more interpretive structural-comparison tools, though it does not explicitly contrast sibling 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?

Usage is implied through terms like 'exploratory structural distances' and explicit caveats that the results are not calibrated for evolutionary, functional, binding, or antibody cross-reactivity conclusions. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as compare_proteins_topologically or analyze_structural_confidence.

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