Synthesize Protein Intelligence Dossier

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool composes upstream records and author-defined heuristics across seven sources and does not issue clinical conclusions. This adds useful provenance and scope context, though it does not address cost, latency, or why idempotentHint is false.

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 sentences and front-loads the core action and output. Every sentence adds relevant scope or behavioral context without repetition.

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 complex aggregation tool with an output schema, the description covers major evidence sources, the single-protein scope, and the non-clinical limitation. It is nearly complete, with the main remaining gap being explicit guidance on choosing this tool over composing sibling calls.

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?

The description only says the dossier is for 'one protein' and does not explain the required UniProt accession, HGNC symbol, or the depth enum. Although nested schema fields have descriptions, the top-level parameter coverage is effectively undocumented in the description and the description does not compensate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: generating a complete protein intelligence dossier from seven data sources, with named evidence categories. It is distinguishable from single-source siblings such as query_protein_database or generate_variant_clinical_report, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the aggregate tool for one protein when a consolidated dossier is needed rather than individual queries. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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