uniprot_search_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the search is by name or definition, a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose potential pitfalls like query limits or response structure beyond what the output schema might cover. With annotations, the description provides minimal extra value.

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 a single sentence plus examples, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.

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 (3 params, output schema exists), the description could be sufficient for an experienced user, but it lacks parameter details and usage context. The examples help, but the absence of guidance on size and format leaves 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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% coverage in the description. The description only hints at the 'query' parameter through examples, leaving 'size' and 'response_format' unexplained. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 specifies that the tool searches UniProt's controlled keyword vocabulary by name or definition, using examples like 'acetylation'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'uniprot_search' (which likely searches entries) and 'uniprot_get_keyword' (retrieval by ID). The verb 'Search' and resource are explicit.

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 for finding keywords by queries, as shown in examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'uniprot_get_keyword' for exact IDs or other search tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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