uniprot_get_uniparc

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true (no mutation) and openWorldHint=true (results may vary). The description aligns with these, stating it returns data (sequence, checksums, etc.) and provides context about UniParc's non-redundant nature. No contradiction, and description adds useful 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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary action and return value, and the second provides context and usage guidance. No superfluous words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, return content, and sibling differentiation. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the returned data includes (sequence, MD5/CRC64, cross-reference counts, etc.), and it reinforces the UPI format. While the schema is sufficient, the description enriches understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('UniParc sequence-archive record'), clearly states the input requirement (known UPI), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining when to use a search tool instead ('Don't have a UPI yet? Use uniprot_search_uniparc').

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (when you have a UPI) and when not to (if you don't have a UPI, use uniprot_search_uniparc). It also explains the uniqueness of UniParc records, reinforcing the rationale for this tool.

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