uniprot_resolve_chembl

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the result may be empty for proteins without ChEMBL data and returns IDs with links. This adds mild context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded and directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence is essential, with no superfluous 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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and high schema coverage, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's function and output. It could be improved by mentioning error cases or the source of ChEMBL data, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (accession and response_format) well described. The description does not add meaningful details beyond the schema, such as the expected format of the returned data, so it meets the baseline.

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 it resolves ChEMBL drug-target cross-references for a UniProt entry, specifying the return of ChEMBL target IDs with EBI viewer links and the empty result case. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like uniprot_resolve_alphafold or uniprot_resolve_pdb, leaving differentiation to the tool name.

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 usage when ChEMBL drug-target cross-references are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other resolve tools) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are given.

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