get_uniprot_generic_annotations_api_uniprot_annotations__uni

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main contribution is detailing the response content (sequence, residue ranges, metadata). This adds value but does not disclose potential issues like rate limits or permission requirements. Score is appropriate given annotation coverage.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose and key behavior, followed by a detailed breakdown of the response. It is reasonably concise for the level of detail, with no repetition. A slight reduction in verbosity would not harm, but current length is justified.

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 thoroughly explains the return values: sequence, length, annotation records with residue details, numbering, PDB entries, and metadata. It covers essential aspects for a generic annotation tool. Lacks mention of pagination or error handling, but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 filtering by annotation_category is optional, which aligns with the schema. However, no further detail on valid annotation categories is provided. Baseline 3 is correct as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 filtering. The verb 'provides' and specific resource 'PDBe-KB annotations' make the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the unique focus on generic annotations is evident from the detailed context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, without indicating when it is preferable over sibling tools like get_uniprot_mapping or get_uniprot_variation. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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