uniprot_get_ptms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that PTM types include disulfide bonds, cross-links, etc., and notably mentions the empty case behavior with pointers to external databases (PhosphoSitePlus, GlyConnect). This provides transparency beyond what annotations offer.

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 paragraph but includes both the main purpose and additional context about PTM importance and empty-case behavior. While informative, it could be slightly more concise by trimming the functional importance sentence. However, it is not overly verbose and front-loads the key action.

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 presence of an output schema and two parameters, the description adequately covers the return value types and empty-case handling. However, it entirely omits parameter semantics, which reduces completeness. The description partially compensates by explaining the nature of the output, but the lack of parameter details makes it less complete for a tool with two parameters.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (accession, response_format). The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how to use them. For example, it does not clarify that 'accession' is a UniProt ID or that 'response_format' accepts values like 'markdown'. This is a critical omission.

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 it 'Return[s] the post-translational modification features' with specific examples like modified residues, glycosylation sites. The verb 'Return' and resource 'PTM features' are precise, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools like uniprot_get_features by focusing on PTMs.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions PTMs are functionally critical but fails to specify when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. With many sibling tools (e.g., uniprot_get_features, uniprot_get_processing_features), the absence of usage context is a significant gap.

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