uniprot_get_uniparc

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no mutation, and the description's 'Fetch' aligns with that. The description adds behavioral details on the returned data (checksums, cross-references, etc.), but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid UPI), rate limits, or potential side effects. The openWorldHint is not elaborated.

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) and front-loaded with the primary action and example. It efficiently lists returned content without unnecessary elaboration. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullet points, but overall it's succinct.

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?

For a simple fetch-by-identifier tool, the description covers the purpose, input (UPI example), and output (list of returned data). An output schema exists, so detailed return format is not required. However, it omits the response_format parameter behavior and error scenarios, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially covers 'upi' with an example, but does not describe the 'response_format' parameter (default 'markdown'). No details on UPI format validation or accepted values are given, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 action (fetch a UniParc record by UPI) and lists specific return fields (sequence, checksums, cross-reference counts, etc.). It provides an example UPI, which aids understanding. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like uniprot_get_entry or uniprot_search_uniparc, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explains that UniParc is the non-redundant sequence archive, implying use when retrieving archival sequence records. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives (e.g., uniprot_get_entry for curated entries). No prerequisites or context for selection are provided.

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