pdb_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: resolving the DOI by title when RCSB omits it, and notes this is common for older entries. It does not mention failure modes or exact output structure, but the output schema covers the return shape and the disclosed fallback is genuinely useful.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core output stated first and the DOI-resolution behavior second. The rhetorical line about coordinates and papers is not strictly necessary but reinforces the usage context without bloating the definition.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a relevant edge case (older entries missing DOIs). It does not describe failure behavior such as unknown PDB IDs or unresolvable DOIs, but those are not needed for basic tool selection and invocation.

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?

The single required parameter, pdb_id, is self-descriptive and the description ties it to PDB/RCSB entries, so an agent knows what to pass. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no format, examples, or accepted values. This is a minor gap because the parameter is obvious and only one is required.

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 identifies the resource (PDB entry) and the two key outputs: metadata and the primary citation. It also adds a distinguishing behavior (DOI resolution by title when RCSB omits it), which helps separate this from the sibling literature and UniProt tools. The lack of an explicit verb is minor because the intent is immediately clear.

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 gives a strong usage rationale: if a design relies on a structure, the underlying paper is the source of analysis, and this tool provides that paper in one lookup. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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