annot_ent_annot_id_entity_id_e5718131

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is aggregated from multiple PDBe-KB partner resources and enumerates return contents, which is useful context but does not add auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose before the enumeration of returned fields. The parenthetical examples and return list are dense but each element conveys content; nothing is filler.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing annotation type, per-residue scores, confidence metrics, group labels, resource URL, and Best Chain ID. For a read-only tool this is nearly complete, missing only usage routing.

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 100%, so both parameters (pdb_id, entity_id) are already documented with format and pattern constraints. The description reiterates the PDB Entity ID but adds no syntax or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (residue-level functional and biophysical annotations for a PDB Entity ID), and names the aggregation sources. The residue-level scope distinguishes it from sequence-level siblings, but it does not explicitly name an alternative to route the agent.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names a sibling alternative despite many adjacent per-entity tools (sec_struct, bind_sites, doms). Usage is only implied by the input being a PDB Entity ID.

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