uniprot_resolve_alphafold

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds behavioral context: it includes a direct EBI viewer link and notes that there is typically one canonical model per accession, hinting at variability. No contradictions with 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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence front-loads the core action and cardinality; the second adds a high-value detail (EBI link). Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, annotations, and low parameter count, the description is largely complete. It mentions the key output feature (EBI link) and typical cardinality. It could briefly mention what happens when no model exists, but the openWorldHint somewhat covers that.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for both 'accession' and 'response_format.'

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 it resolves the AlphaFoldDB cross-reference for a UniProt entry, specifying 'one canonical model per accession.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like uniprot_get_alphafold_confidence, and includes mention of the EBI viewer link as a key feature.

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 implies usage when needing the AlphaFold cross-reference or a viewer link, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like uniprot_get_alphafold_confidence or state when not to use it. Guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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