uniprot_get_uniref

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by listing the returned fields (representative member, member list, common taxon, last-updated date) and explaining the meaning of cluster prefixes. 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the action, inline examples, and a bullet list of returned fields. No redundant information, every part earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers all necessary context for a simple fetch-by-ID tool: valid IDs, response formats, and what the output contains.

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 100%, and the description adds value by providing examples for uniref_id and clarifying the response_format behavior (markdown default, json option, rejection of other values). This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 ('UniRef cluster by ID'), with clear examples showing different identity levels. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uniprot_search_uniref by focusing on retrieval by ID.

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 implies when to use (to get a specific cluster), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as uniprot_search_uniref for query-based discovery.

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