uniprot_annotate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the read-only nature ('Query'), the supported identifier types, and the annotation fields returned. It does not disclose result-count behavior, error handling, ambiguity of gene-name queries, or any UniProt API limitations, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The English and Chinese versions mirror each other, which adds some redundancy, but the overall length is still appropriate and the essential information appears early.

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 relatively simple lookup tool with an output schema, the essentials are present: what is queried, which query forms are supported, and which annotation fields come back. It is incomplete in that `max_results` behavior is not addressed and no guidance is given on disambiguating gene-name queries, but this is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 meaningfully explains the `query` parameter by saying accession or gene-name search is supported and gives an accession example (P04637). The `max_results` parameter is not described, though its name, type, and default make its purpose reasonably inferable.

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 a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('UniProt protein annotations'), and enumerates the annotation fields returned (protein name, gene, organism, length, function, Gene Ontology). It also states supported query forms (accession or gene name), which differentiates it from generic protein or sequence tools like uniparc_search or protein_domains.

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 gives an explicit use context: 'for protein function interpretation' / '用于蛋白功能解读', which implies when an agent should reach for this tool. However, it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions or conditions for when another UniProt-related or annotation tool would be more appropriate.

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