uniprot_lookup_variant

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns matching variant features with a UniProt-curated description (often disease association) and that a null result does not imply benignity. This 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 covering the action and a crucial caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary 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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input format, and usage context. It misses a brief explanation of the 'accession' parameter but otherwise provides sufficient completeness for a lookup tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by defining the 'change' parameter with examples and HGVS notation. However, the 'accession' parameter is not explained, and 'response_format' is mentioned only as a default. The description adds value but leaves some parameters unclear.

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's purpose: looking up an HGVS-shorthand amino-acid change in a UniProt entry's natural-variant annotations. It specifies the verb 'look up', the resource 'UniProt entry's natural-variant annotations', and the format of the input. This distinguishes it from siblings like uniprot_get_variants which might be broader.

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 provides context on when to use (for literature-described variants) and important caveats (null result does not mean benign, suggesting alternative sources like ClinVar/dbSNP for population data). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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