uniprot_search_citations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only query. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the query examples. No mention of rate limits, result limits, or how the size parameter affects behavior.

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—a single sentence and an example. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured to include brief notes on other parameters without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema and informative annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the query intent but lacks details on pagination, response format options, and default behaviors, which are important for a complete understanding.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It only indirectly explains the 'query' parameter via examples, leaving 'size' and 'response_format' entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to populate these fields correctly.

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 'Search the UniProt citations index' and provides concrete query examples, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. Among sibling tools focused on retrieving specific citations or publications, this is clearly distinct as a search tool for the citations index.

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?

Examples illustrate valid queries, but no guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uniprot_get_citation or uniprot_get_publications. The description implicitly suggests querying the citations index, but lacks explicit context on when not to use it.

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