uniprot_get_variants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, read-only operations. The description adds valuable context that only literature-described variants are included, which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations. It also clarifies that the tool returns curated, not all, variants. No contradictions.

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 of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and limitation. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core 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?

The description is complete for a read-only lookup tool with solid schema documentation and annotations. It explains scope, distinguishes from a key sibling, and references another tool for complementary data. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List every literature-described natural variant UniProt has curated for an entry, including disease-associated mutations.' This defines the verb (list), resource (variants for a protein), and scope (literature-described natural variants). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to see the full variant catalogue for a protein.' It also tells when not to use it and points to an alternative: 'to check one specific HGVS-shorthand change (e.g. 'R175H') use uniprot_lookup_variant instead.' Additionally, it references uniprot_resolve_clinvar for population-scale data.

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