protein_glycosylation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does state what is returned (protein names, glycosites, modifications), implying a read-only lookup. It does not disclose behavior on invalid accessions, coverage limits, or whether only curated entries are returned, which would add transparency.

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 front-loaded with the English purpose, and is short overall. However, the Chinese sentences largely repeat the same information, so not every sentence adds new content; a single bilingual summary or key details only would be more efficient.

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 lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the required input, expected output fields, and intended research use. It could mention limitations or relationship to glycan_lookup, but the basics for correct invocation are all present.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by naming the parameter's semantic type ('按 UniProt 编号') and giving a concrete example ('如 P04637'). It still lacks explicit format/validation details, but for a single accession parameter this is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Look up'), the resource ('protein glycosylation and glycan sites'), and the expected output ('protein names/glycosites/glycan modifications'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as glycan_lookup or protein_domains, so it misses the top score.

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 provides a clear use context: query by UniProt accession (e.g. P04637) for glycoprotein research. However, it does not say when not to use it or name alternatives like glycan_lookup, leaving routing partially to the agent.

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