uniparc_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns UPI IDs, cross-references, and organism counts, and that it covers all public protein sequences. However, it does not mention query syntax behavior, pagination, rate limits, or any edge cases.

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 short and front-loaded with the essential English statement. The Chinese portion mostly repeats the same information, adding some redundancy, but overall the description remains compact and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. For a simple two-parameter search tool, the core behavior is covered, but the missing relationship to uniparc_by_id leaves a modest completeness gap for an agent choosing between tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'query' by indicating searches can be by species, gene, or protein number, which is helpful. The 'max_results' parameter is not described, though its purpose is inferable from its name and default value.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('EBI UniParc protein sequence archive'), and the output types (UPI IDs, cross-references, organism counts). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling uniparc_by_id.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uniparc_by_id or other search tools. The description implies a broad use case—searching UniParc—but provides no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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