uniprot_get_evidence_summary

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it describes the counting/classification logic, the three evidence categories, the project-defined index semantics, the `calibrated=False` legacy key, and the availability of raw counts. These details prevent misinterpretation of the score and are consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds important caveats about the index. It is appropriately sized overall, though the final legacy-key sentence is somewhat implementation-specific and could be tighter.

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 read-only evidence-summary tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the key interpretive context an agent needs. It explains what is counted, how occurrences are classified, and how to interpret the index without overclaiming correctness.

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 100%, so accession and response_format are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no input-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: summarise/grade ECO evidence codes attached to a UniProt entry's annotations. It also explains the operation concretely by counting features/comments per evidence code and classifying occurrences as experimental, manual, or automatic. This is distinguishable from related siblings such as uniprot_get_alphafold_confidence, which it explicitly contrasts.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance by warning that the 0-100 index is an annotation evidence mix, not correctness, biological certainty, or calibrated probability, and contrasts it with AlphaFold pLDDT. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool to use instead for confidence or state broader when-to-use conditions.

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