uniprot_get_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's behavioral contribution is limited. It adds that the tool returns a 'full, unfiltered' array and optionally narrowed, which is consistent. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main action and scope, then provides alternatives. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 100% schema coverage, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its optional narrowing, and how it differs from sibling tools. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining 'leave empty to return every feature' for feature_types and noting that 'any other value is rejected' for response_format. This contextualizes the parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Return the full, unfiltered feature array for an entry' and lists domains, binding sites, PTMs, etc. Distinguishes from siblings by naming specific alternative tools for narrower views.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (full feature array) and when not to (use uniprot_features_at_position for residue-specific view, or dedicated tools for curated subsets). Provides both usage context and exclusions.

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