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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns PDB IDs with relevance scores and describes the database, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and scope. Every word is informative; no fluff.

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?

For a simple search tool with only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return format. The presence of an output schema means the description need not elaborate on return values beyond mentioning relevance scores.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It does mention search types (keyword, protein name, organism, author) which aligns with the query parameter description, but adds no new semantic meaning.

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 220K+ structures by keyword, protein name, organism, or author and returns PDB IDs with relevance scores. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like science.pdb.ligand, science.pdb.sequence, and science.pdb.structure which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context for using this tool (when you need to search the PDB by various criteria), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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