get_protein_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation, the data source, and the exact JSON return shape including protein name, gene, length, mass, and organism. It does not mention error handling for invalid accessions, but for a simple read-only retriever this is a minor gap.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. No sentence is wasted, and the most important information—what the tool fetches and what it returns—is front-loaded.

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 single-required-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, this description is complete. It specifies the input format, gives a realistic example, and describes the returned payload, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining the parameter as a 'UniProt accession ID' and giving a concrete example (P04637). This gives an agent enough information to construct a valid call despite the schema providing no parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('structured protein details from UniProt by primary accession'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling gene-resolution tools. It also previews the returned fields, making the scope 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 makes the intended use clear: provide a UniProt primary accession and receive protein details. It does not explicitly contrast with resolve_gene or batch_resolve_genes, but the 'by primary accession' phrasing and the sibling names make the appropriate context inferable.

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