uniparc_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval and lists the specific data returned (sequence length, sequence, cross-references), which is transparent enough for a simple lookup. It omits error behavior and data-source caveats, but these are minor for an ID-based fetch.

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 descripotion is compact and front-loaded with the most essential information. The Chinese sentence is largely a duplocate of the English sentence and adds limited new value ('all' for cross-references), creating minor redundancy without bloating the overall size.

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?

With an output schema present and only one required parameter, the description covers the input contract and highlights the main output fields. It does not mention the prerequisite that a UPI ID must already be known or direct the user to uniparc_search for ID discovery, which would fully round out the interaction flow.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'upi': it states the input is a UPI number and provides a concrete example (UPI0000123165). This gives an agent everything needed to format the argument correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get UniParc record details by UPI ID.' It also enumerates the return payload (sequence length, sequence, cross-references), which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from a search-oriented sibling like uniparc_search.

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 phrase 'by UPI ID' implies the tool should be used when an ID is already known, but it never states this condition explicitly. It does not reference a sibling like uniparc_search for discovering IDs, nor does it provide any when-to-use or 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.