uniprot_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the content returned (sequence, features, PDB cross-references) and does not mention error handling, authentication, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a retrieval tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is not achieved because critical information is missing; it is terse rather than efficient.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description fails to explain usage context or parameter semantics. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool and what the accession parameter requires. An agent cannot confidently invoke it based on this description alone.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'accession' parameter at all. There is no explanation of what an accession is, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's string type. The description adds no value to the schema.

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 identifies the resource (UniProt record) and its content (sequence, features, cross-referenced PDB entries), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pdb_entry. It lacks an explicit verb but the intent to retrieve an entry is clear from the name and content description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdb_entry or lit_*. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool.

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