Query Protein Research Database

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the data source ('local SQLite'), the fact that no API calls are made, and the scope ('previously assessed proteins'). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three concise sentences: first states the purpose, second describes the output, third adds context. No extraneous information, well-structured and efficient.

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's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and data source. However, it omits parameter guidance and does not mention pagination or ordering. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to use effectively without inferring from parameter names.

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%, yet the description provides no information about the three parameters (druggability_tier, min_plddt, limit). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 'Search the local knowledge graph for previously assessed proteins', providing a specific verb and resource. The title 'Query Protein Research Database' reinforces this, and the description distinguishes this simple retrieval tool from the many analysis-focused siblings.

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 implies usage for local, fast queries by noting 'Serves from local SQLite — no API calls', but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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