Find Protein

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the unified search scope. It does not contradict annotations, but fails to provide additional traits like rate limits or response 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences packing the core purpose and usage modes without any wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the essential use cases and hints at the two search strategies. It lacks details on how parameters like 'source' or 'organism' interact, but these are documented in the schema.

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 100%, so each parameter is well-documented. The description adds high-level context about the two main use modes (accession vs query), but does not elaborate on specifics like the 'source' or 'organism' parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Unified protein discovery across UniProt and PDB'. It specifies the two main use modes (accession lookup or query search), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_protein_info or get_alphafold_structure which target specific data retrieval.

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 provides clear instructions on when to use each mode: 'Use accession for a direct record lookup or query to search reviewed proteins and experimental structures.' It implicitly guides the agent on choosing between the two input types, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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