uniprot_get_sequence

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so description adds minimal behavioral insight. Does not detail the FASTA format structure or any edge cases (e.g., missing accession). 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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly expanded (e.g., mention output format) without becoming verbose.

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?

With an output schema present and only one simple parameter, the description is adequate. It covers the essential what and how, but could mention that the output is a text string in FASTA format to be fully self-contained.

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%, yet the description does not clarify the expected format or examples for the 'accession' parameter (e.g., 'P12345'). While the name is self-explanatory to domain users, the tool should explicitly state it expects a valid UniProt accession to aid less experienced agents.

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 the action (Get), resource (protein sequence), format (FASTA), and identifier (UniProt accession). Distinct from sibling tools like uniprot_get_entry or uniprot_get_features, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uniprot_get_entry for full record, uniprot_search for discovery). Lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite context.

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