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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the exact return contents and a meaningful provenance caveat that the network is derived SOLO from topología, with no drug-bound structure opened. That prevents a caller from misreading the result as a ligand-aware contact map. It does not say what happens when an unsupported PDB code is passed, but overall the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 front-loads what is returned, the second delivers the topology-only caveat. The enumeration of return fields is dense but each item is informative, and nothing is redundant filler. Slightly long single sentence keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the returned fields and the derivation method. What remains uncovered is edge behavior (unknown or unpublished PDB code, error versus empty result) and whether residue counts are per structure or per chain, but for a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as a 'código PDB, p.ej. 4OBE'. The description's enumeration of specific codes adds a little meaning beyond the schema (implying a supported set), but the example 4OBE merely repeats the schema example, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Devuelve la red de contactos de una estructura publicada por el motor'. It also enumerates the concrete payload (residuos, aristas, residuos distales y de fuente, sha256, URL del PDB), so an agent instantly knows what this returns and how it differs from siblings like ver_archivo or ver_propagacion.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller should invoke this when holding a PDB code and wanting its contact network. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for related queries (for example, a sibling that might report the archived file itself). The parenthetical list (4OBE, 1OPL, 5TBY, 1NKP) implicitly scopes valid inputs but is not framed as a usage rule.

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