uniprot_search_proteomes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it performs a search and returns results in markdown or json, with invalid formats rejected. This aligns with annotations and adds some context but doesn't reveal additional 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 a single paragraph but well-structured: purpose first, then usage flow, return behavior, and examples. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters, output schema present, and annotations, the description covers the tool's function, usage flow, and expected output. It links to a related tool. Could mention pagination or error behavior more explicitly, but 'empty list' and 'rejected' statements provide adequate completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches all parameters: query with examples (organism_id:9606, etc.), size with capping behavior, response_format with rejection details. This provides practical usage guidance beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'UniProt proteomes', and distinguishes from sibling `uniprot_get_proteome` by saying this tool is for finding the UP ID and the other for the full record. Examples reinforce the purpose.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to find a proteome ID, then switching to `uniprot_get_proteome` for details. It also explains that it returns up to `size` matches or an empty list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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