Get Server Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context about what is returned at each detail level, including the list of tools, accepted argument aliases, response modes, etc. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loading the purpose, then detailing parameter options, and ending with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it relates to other resources (uniprot://tools, uniprot://capabilities).

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 only parameter, 'detail', is fully described in the schema and enhanced in the description: it explains the default, the two options, and what each option includes (summary is light with tool list; full adds heavy reference blocks). This adds significant meaning beyond the enum values.

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 returns the uniprot-link discovery surface, with explicit details about summary vs full modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with proteins and queries, making it clear this is a meta-information tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this first in a cold session' and suggests alternatives like uniprot://tools or uniprot://capabilities. This helps the agent decide when and how to use this tool.

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