get_uniprot_variation_api_uniprot_variation__uniprot_accessi

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the description retrieving data. The description adds significant detail about the response contents (protein sequence, variants, diseases, predictions), providing transparency beyond the annotation alone.

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 that front-loads the main purpose. It is slightly long but every sentence provides value about the response contents, making it efficient for the complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the response fields (protein sequence, variants, diseases, genomic locations, predictions, etc.), providing sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (just 'UniProt accession'). It meets the baseline for full 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 the tool retrieves variation details for a given UniProt accession, specifying the exact resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are primarily PDB-related or other UniProt functions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The context from sibling names implies its usage for UniProt variation queries, but the description lacks direct usage recommendations.

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