uniprot_get_active_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds specific detail on the types of sites returned, enhancing transparency without contradicting 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 two concise sentences with no redundancy, front-loading the core functionality and adding contextual value in the second sentence.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and use case well, and the presence of an output schema and annotations fills in remaining gaps, though it omits details about necessary input validity or error handling.

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 does not explain the parameters (accession, response_format) or their meaning, leaving the agent to infer from names alone, especially lacking guidance on response_format values.

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 explicitly states the tool returns specific residue-level annotations (active sites, binding sites, etc.) and identifies it as a filtered view over the feature array, clearly distinguishing it from the broader uniprot_get_features sibling.

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 provides domain context (enzyme drug-design, antibiotic target-validation) and hints at its filtered nature, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like uniprot_get_features.

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