uniprot_replay_from_cache

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

The description explains behaviors beyond annotations: relies on local file system cache (consistent with openWorldHint=false), is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint=true), and returns cached body wrapped in Provenance. It even clarifies the annotation meaning. 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 three short paragraphs, front-loading the primary action. It wastes no words, though the annotation explanation could be omitted as it's redundant with the input. Still, it's concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail returns. It covers cache conditions, offline use, and provenance. Minor omission: no error handling (e.g., cache miss), but for a simple replay tool this is acceptable.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain the 'url' parameter (what URL to use) nor the 'response_format' default. Only the return format is hinted. Without this, the agent cannot correctly construe the parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Read a previously-cached UniProt response without hitting the upstream,' clearly identifying the verb (read) and resource (cached response). It distinguishes from sibling tools that access upstream, e.g., uniprot_get_entry. This meets the highest standard.

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 lists specific use cases: reproducing old answers, working offline/air-gapped, and reducing upstream load. It also notes the cache is opt-in via an environment variable and reports cache-disabled when unset. While it lacks explicit direction on when not to use, these guidelines are sufficient for informed selection.

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