get_uniprot_generic_annotations_api_uniprot_annotations__uni

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it is a read operation. It adds behavioral context: the response includes sequence, residue ranges, and metadata. No contradiction with annotations. The description provides value beyond the annotations by detailing the return structure.

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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and lists key response components. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return: sequence, length, annotation records, residue ranges, PDB numbering, etc. It covers main aspects but omits details like pagination or error handling. For a 2-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that 'annotation_category' is for filtering, which is implied but clarified. However, no additional format or constraints are provided. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 provides PDBe-KB annotations for a given UniProt accession with optional category filtering. It specifies the response contents and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific annotation types (e.g., variation, mapping). The verb 'provides' and resource 'PDBe-KB annotations' are specific and 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. It does not mention when to choose it (e.g., for broad annotation overview) or when to avoid it (e.g., for specific data like interfaces). The context is only implicit from the description of what it returns.

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