rcsb_get_uniprot

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

Even with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already declared, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: default fields are curated for a functional snapshot, heavier annotation sets can run to hundreds of entries and are deliberately kept out of defaults, and the `fields` parameter replaces the curated default. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 core purpose, then organized into default vs. optional field behavior, then a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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?

Given the tool is a single-record fetch with a relatively rich output schema, the description covers the important context: default fields, optional heavy annotations, and how to verify custom field paths. It even references server instructions for deeper context, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains `uniprot_id` as a UniProt accession with an example, and `fields` as an optional GraphQL selection with examples and a discovery path (`rcsb_describe_data_object("uniprot")`). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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+resource: 'Fetch the UniProt record RCSB maps to an accession', which clearly distinguishes this from the many search- and entry-focused sibling tools. The example accession P69905 adds immediate concreteness.

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 strong contextual guidance: it explains the default functional snapshot and when to opt into heavier annotation sets via the `fields` parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use this tool, but the unique resource and clear access path make the intended usage unambiguous.

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