uniprot_search_uniparc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's assertion that this is a search operation is consistent. It adds that results are capped at 500 server-side and describes the response format options. This adds value beyond annotations but does not disclose any unexpected behaviors (e.g., rate limits, data staleness).

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?

Two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and entry point role. The second provides examples and a workflow pointer. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. This is an exemplary concise description.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers query syntax, size limit, and response format. The workflow hint (search then get) ties it to sibling tools. It could mention pagination behavior beyond the size cap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 adds concrete examples for the query parameter (e.g., 'taxonomy_id:9606') and explains the query language link. For size, it notes the server-side cap of 500. For response_format, it clarifies the difference between markdown and json. These details improve usability beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 searches UniParc by taxonomy, source database, or other query fields, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool uniprot_get_uniparc by noting that it is the entry point when you don't have a UPI. The verb 'search' combined with the specific resource 'UniParc' and context 'non-redundant sequence archive' makes purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool ('entry point when you don't already have a UPI') and what to do next ('once you have a UPI... use uniprot_get_uniparc'). Examples are provided. However, it does not contrast with other search tools like uniprot_search, which could cause confusion if the user is targeting a different database.

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