embl_data

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'access' and lists operations. It doesn't mention read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or return formats, leaving users without safety or side-effect expectations.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the overall purpose, the second explains the method parameter. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler.

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 schema covers parameter details well, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out what users can expect in return, error behavior, or any additional context. The core operations are listed, making it minimally adequate.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, including conditional usage for each method, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description's list of method values is already present in the enum and adds no extra meaning.

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 identifies the tool as accessing EMBL-EBI bioinformatics APIs and enumerates the specific operations (search_interpro, get_interpro_entry, get_protein_domains, search_pfam, get_protein_features, search_taxonomy), making its function distinct and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs using the 'method' parameter to select an operation, which provides internal guidance. Since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, but it lacks any mention of prerequisites or scenarios where the tool should not be used.

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