uniprot_id_mapping

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds practical details: ids are comma-separated, and lists common database codes. This adds value beyond annotations, though it does not explain error handling or response structure.

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?

Three short, relevant sentences with no filler. Every sentence provides necessary information (purpose, input format, code examples).

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for the core mapping task. It covers the essential parameter details, though it could elaborate on the response_format parameter and error scenarios.

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 description must compensate. It explains ids as comma-separated and gives examples for from_db/to_db. However, it does not describe the response_format parameter or provide a complete list of valid database codes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool maps between ID types, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (mostly get/search) and provides example database codes for context.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The purpose is implied by the description, but alternatives (e.g., using uniprot_get_entry for full details) are not mentioned.

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