uniprot_features_at_position

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the intersection logic and the 1-indexed position detail. It does not contradict annotations and provides minor additional context about what the tool returns.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the second provides context and an example. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and important details like 1-indexing. It is complete for its purpose.

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 must compensate. It explains accession and position via the TP53 example, but does not explain the response_format parameter. This leaves one parameter undocumented, so it only partially adds value.

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 'List' and resource 'UniProt features that overlap a residue position'. It provides a concrete example ('what's at residue 175 of TP53?') and differentiates from sibling tools like 'uniprot_get_features' by focusing on a single residue, explicitly mentioning 'at a single residue'.

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 states it is 'useful for variant-effect interpretation' and explains the output covers multiple feature types. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context makes its specific scope clear.

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