uniprot_get_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, read-only access. The description adds value by listing the types of information returned (function, gene, organism, disease associations, cross-references), providing transparency beyond 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. The first sentence clearly states the purpose with examples, the second lists key return fields. No extraneous information; every word is useful.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides adequate context for the core functionality. It lists major return categories but does not explain the response_format parameter. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple single-entry retrieval tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the 'accession' parameter using examples, adding meaning. However, the 'response_format' parameter (default 'markdown') is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and possible values unclear. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 action ('Fetch a UniProt protein entry') and the resource ('by accession'), with concrete examples (P04637, P38398). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific aspects (e.g., uniprot_get_features, uniprot_get_sequence) or perform batch operations.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single complete entry when an accession is known, contrasting with batch or feature-specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like uniprot_batch_entries or uniprot_search.

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