Map Identifiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavior details: response mode controls verbosity, return structure (grouped by database, matched databases, counts), and explains difference between compact and full modes. Adds useful context beyond 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 with front-loaded main purpose, then details, then alternative tool. It is informative but slightly verbose. Could be more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity of mapping to multiple databases, the description fully explains return format (grouped by database, counts, matched databases) and response mode behavior. Output schema exists, so return values are documented. Complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples (P05067, isoforms), default database list, and explanation of response_mode values. This exceeds what the schema alone 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 maps a UniProtKB accession to primary external identifiers, listing specific databases and distinguishing it from the sibling tool get_protein_cross_references. The verb 'map' and resource identification are precise.

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?

Explicitly states default behavior, optional restriction to databases, and directs to get_protein_cross_references for exhaustive cross-references. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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