uniprot_target_dossier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context: it composes nine views plus FASTA fetch, notes that it makes only two upstream network calls (not nine), and explicitly lists what it includes. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is efficiently structured: a clear opening sentence, a bullet-point list of included views, and a closing sentence with usage alternatives. No redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (nine views) and the presence of an output schema (context confirms 'has output schema: true'), the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context. It explains what is included, what is not, and how to get deeper details. The tool's purpose as an entry-level summary is clear.

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% (no descriptions in schema). The description does not explain the parameters (accession or response_format) beyond what is obvious from the tool name. For an AI agent, this lack of parameter explanation could be problematic, though the domain assumes understanding of 'accession.' Baseline expectation is higher due to low coverage.

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?

Description explicitly states it performs a 'one-call comprehensive characterisation of a UniProt entry' structured for drug-discovery, listing nine specific views plus FASTA fetch. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives for specific sub-tasks (e.g., uniprot_get_alphafold_confidence for pLDDT).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For per-residue pLDDT confidence call uniprot_get_alphafold_confidence separately. For full disease detail call uniprot_get_disease_associations.' Also states that the dossier is an 'entry-level summary that decides which deeper tools are worth calling.'

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