uniprot_batch_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds a behavioral constraint (max 100 accessions) but does not discuss idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich.

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: one sentence and a parameter hint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may explain return values. The description covers the input constraint but lacks details on response format, error handling, allowed values for response_format, or pagination. Adequate for a simple batch fetch but with clear gaps.

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 is needed. It explains the 'accessions' parameter as 'comma-separated UniProt IDs (max 100)', adding significant meaning beyond the schema. The 'response_format' parameter is not described, though it has a default value 'markdown'. The critical parameter is well covered.

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 the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'multiple entries', and specifies the format 'comma-separated UniProt IDs' with a constraint 'max 100'. This distinguishes it from siblings like uniprot_get_entry (single entry) and uniprot_search.

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 when to use this tool (for multiple entries with comma-separated IDs) and sets a limit. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list provides context. Could be improved with explicit when-not guidance.

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