uniprot_get_go_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not repeat that. It adds the behavioral detail that results are 'grouped by aspect', which is not evident from annotations or schema. No contradictions exist.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the key optional feature.

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?

The tool has three parameters and an output schema, but the description omits details on 'accession' and 'response_format'. While the output schema can compensate for return value documentation, the missing parameter information reduces completeness. However, the tool is simple and the description covers the most important aspect.

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 explain parameters. It only describes the 'aspect' parameter partially (filter options), but does not explain the 'accession' parameter (though it is obvious from context) or the 'response_format' parameter. This leaves two of three parameters with no semantic guidance.

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 gets GO annotations grouped by aspect, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uniprot_get_features or uniprot_get_entry by specifying the exact data type (GO annotations) and the grouping behavior.

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 indicates the optional aspect filter ('F', 'P', 'C'), guiding when to narrow results. It implicitly suggests using this tool when GO annotations are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. Given the tool's specific purpose, the guidance is adequate.

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