uniprot_get_features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with variable results. The description adds only that it 'gets' features and offers a filter, which does not reveal additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or format limitations). With annotations present, the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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: the first states the core function, the second adds filtering detail. There is no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 existence of many sibling tools for specific feature types, the description does not explain the relationship or why an agent might choose this general tool over those. It also does not describe the output structure, but an output schema exists to cover that. The description is adequate for a general tool but lacks guidance for nuanced selection among similar tools.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'feature_types' is a comma-separated filter and provides example values, and implies 'accession' identifies the protein. However, it does not explain 'response_format' beyond its default (markdown) or clarify possible values. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves others partially defined.

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 'Get protein features: domains, binding sites, PTMs, signal peptides.' It identifies the resource (protein) and the action (get features). However, it doesn't detail what the output contains (e.g., positions, scores), which would further enhance clarity. It distinguishes from siblings by being a general feature retrieval, but the differentiation is implicit.

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 mentions an optional filter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus specific sibling tools like uniprot_get_active_sites or uniprot_get_ptms. The usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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