Phenotype to Protein Structures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the pipeline (resolving HPO term to diseases, then to targets, then to UniProt IDs) and the expected output, going 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 concise, well-structured with a clear pipeline breakdown, and includes an example. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (multi-step, multiple inputs, output schema exists), the description provides a complete overview: pipeline, output UniProt IDs, and next-step tool. It could elaborate on the output format but is sufficient with the output schema present.

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 provides descriptions for hpo_id and defaults for other parameters. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond mentioning the pipeline. The example uses hpo_id but no explanation of disease_limit or targets_per_disease. The schema covers most parameter meaning, so 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 clearly states the tool maps a clinical phenotype to protein structures of disease targets via a multi-step pipeline. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining the unique pipeline and linking to analyze_structural_confidence.

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 explains when to use the tool (to map phenotype to structures) and provides explicit guidance to use returned UniProt IDs with analyze_structural_confidence. It includes an example but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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