bio.protein

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool returns (a full entry with various fields) and gives an example accession. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup tool, this is acceptable and transparent about the output.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, content, and relationship to a sibling. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description lists typical return fields (names, gene, organism, etc.) and identifies the sibling tool. For a simple lookup with one parameter, this is fairly complete. However, it could mention that the response may be a large JSON object or include a note about potential missing fields.

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 describes the accession parameter with an example. The description reinforces this by providing an example accession (P04637) and clarifying it is a UniProtKB accession. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which already has 100% coverage.

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 that the tool returns a full UniProtKB protein entry by accession, listing specific data fields (names, gene, organism, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling tool bio.gene, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it is a 'protein-centric sibling to bio.gene', suggesting when to use this tool vs. the gene tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different needs.

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