uniprot_resolve_interpro

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that signatures are listed from cross-reference properties, but does not disclose additional traits like whether all signatures or only active ones are returned. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence that packs verb, resource, and key detail about cross-reference extraction. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description provides the core functionality but omits parameter explanations. It hints at return format but not fully complete. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%. The description does not explain the 'accession' parameter (though it is implied to be a UniProt accession) or 'response_format' parameter (default 'markdown', but no detail on allowed values). Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'InterPro signatures for a UniProt entry', and specifies details like 'domain/family classifications' and extraction from 'cross-reference properties'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uniprot_resolve_alphafold or uniprot_resolve_chembl.

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?

Implicitly suggests use when InterPro signatures are needed, given the tool name and sibling names (all resolve tools for different databases). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives.

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