Query Protein Research Database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about the local SQLite backend and data population mechanism, which aligns with and complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing key context about local storage and data population. Every sentence adds value with zero fluff.

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 three parameters, an existing output schema, and good annotations, the description covers core purpose and data source adequately. However, it omits details on result behavior (e.g., pagination, sorting, maximum limit) and does not reference the output schema or address the limit parameter behavior.

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%, meaning the tool description provides no parameter information. The description only mentions 'filter criteria' generically but does not explain the available parameters (druggability_tier, min_plddt, limit) or their meanings, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the schema's brief field 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 clearly states it searches a local knowledge graph for stored proteins, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('local knowledge graph'). It distinguishes from external API-based tools by noting no upstream calls, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling query tools like query_variant_database.

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 explains the data source (local, no upstream API) and how data is populated (boot seed and storage API writes), providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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