Get Protein Info

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

The description claims the tool auto-indexes into the session knowledge graph, contradicting the readOnlyHint annotation, which indicates no side effects. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loads key content types, and includes a usage hint. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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?

The description lists the types of data returned (function, domains, etc.), compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, the contradiction reduces confidence in behavioral completeness.

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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter with an example. The description adds value by recommending reviewed accessions (P/Q/O prefix), providing guidance beyond 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a full UniProt Swiss-Prot entry with specific content types (function, domains, PTMs, GO terms, disease links, sequence), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gene_info and find_protein.

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 advises preferring reviewed accessions (P/Q/O prefix) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_protein or get_gene_info. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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