bio.protein

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as retrieving a full entry, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention authentication requirements, or discuss rate limits. While the nature is benign, more explicit transparency would be beneficial.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key verb ('Full...entry'). Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the resource, listing outputs, and distinguishing from a sibling. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the returned fields, the expected input format, and its relationship to a sibling tool. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'accession,' with the schema already providing an example. The tool description repeats the example but adds no new semantic context beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score of 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 retrieves a full UniProtKB protein entry by accession, listing the types of data (names, gene, organism, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself as the protein-centric sibling to bio.gene, ensuring the agent understands its specific resource and differentiation from similar 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 clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives by noting it is the 'Protein-centric sibling to bio.gene,' implicitly guiding the agent to use bio.gene for gene queries. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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