Phenotype to Protein Structures

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the multi-step pipeline (HPO term to diseases to targets to UniProt IDs), which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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, uses a numbered pipeline, and includes a worked example. It front-loads the main purpose. Could be slightly shorter but is efficient.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and moderate complexity. The description explains the output format (UniProt IDs) and links to downstream tools. However, it omits parameter details and potential edge cases, leaving gaps for parameter semantics.

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 has three parameters (hpo_id, disease_limit, targets_per_disease) with only hpo_id having a description in the schema. The tool description does not explain disease_limit or targets_per_disease, leaving the agent to infer from defaults and bounds. Schema description coverage is low, and the description fails to compensate.

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 using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_disease_targets by detailing the pipeline and linking to structural retrieval 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 provides an example and explicitly tells the agent to use returned UniProt IDs with get_structure or get_enriched_protein. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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