uniprot_get_evidence_summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it distinguishes experimental from inferred annotations and counts features and comments, which is transparent about its behavior. No contradiction with 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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral distinction. However, it lacks parameter details and does not mention error conditions or edge cases, which is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly describe the 'accession' parameter (beyond implying it's a UniProt ID) or explain the 'response_format' parameter and its possible values. The description adds no value beyond what can be inferred from the tool name and schema.

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 tool summarizes ECO codes attached to a UniProt entry, counts features and comments per evidence code, and distinguishes experimental from inferred annotations. It provides a specific verb (summarise, counts) and resource (ECO codes), and differentiates from siblings as no other sibling tool deals with evidence summary.

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 explicitly states the tool is critical for distinguishing 'wet-lab confirmed' from 'inferred by similarity' annotations for downstream agents that care about evidence quality, giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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