search_uniprotkb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that default output is a 'compact summary' and that 'total match count is always reported' for paging. It also states that reviewed and organism_id are 'appended to the query for you.' However, it does not mention response format details (beyond summary/fasta/tsv), pagination mechanism, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences followed by brief parameter-specific notes. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second provides usage context. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, default return format, filtering options, paging hint. It is missing explicit mention of how to use format='fasta' or 'tsv' and pagination details, but the output schema covers return structure. Overall, it is adequate for a search tool.

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%, and the description adds valuable context beyond the schema: for 'query', it gives examples of UniProt syntax; for 'reviewed' and 'organism_id', it explains they are appended automatically; for 'fields', it clarifies applicability; for 'format', it describes the three values. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 'Search UniProtKB and return matching protein entries.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('UniProtKB'), and the examples of search criteria (gene, name, organism, etc.) distinguish it from sibling tools like get_entry (single entry) and get_fasta (sequence 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 explains when to use the tool ('find proteins by gene, name, organism, keyword, length, etc.') and hints at alternatives (e.g., for specific entries, use get_entry). It provides guidance on filtering with reviewed and organism_id, and mentions paging based on total match count. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with all siblings.

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