Get UniProt entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description isn't required to restate it. What the description adds is content scope — the specific categories of data returned — which helps the agent judge relevance, but it says nothing about not-found handling, format, or rate/access constraints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the field enumeration following as supporting detail. Nothing is padded and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With one documented parameter, a full output schema, and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly. The only gap is behavior on an invalid or nonexistent accession, which is a minor omission given the otherwise rich structured metadata.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, including concrete example accessions (P02794, P0DTC2). The description adds no further semantics, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a UniProtKB entry') and then enumerates the payload the agent will get back (sequence, function, Pfam families, gene names, organism, review status, EMDB cross-references). The sibling tools (search_emdb, search_geo_methylation) are unrelated retrieval tools, so no differentiation is needed and none is confused.

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 single required 'accession' parameter plus 'Fetch a UniProtKB entry' makes the usage pattern (lookup by identifier) obvious, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus a search tool, and no note about what happens for an unknown accession. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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