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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Keyless' (no authentication required) and explicitly states the return shape (accession, name, type), which is valuable given the lack of an output schema. It does not contradict 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 and front-loaded. The main action is stated first, followed by the return format, use case, and a note on authentication. Each sentence is informative and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, authentication, and functional context. It does not mention potential limitations (e.g., what happens if the accession is invalid), but given the simplicity and annotation support, it is adequately 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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'uniprot' with an example. The description reiterates the same example and clarifies the role as an accession for a protein, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all InterPro entries (families, domains, sites) found on a given UniProt protein'. It also specifies the lookup method (UniProt accession) and the return contents (accession, name, type), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_entries or get_entry.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: 'Useful to functionally annotate a protein' and 'Complements UniProt/AlphaFold'. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance with alternatives.

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