ebi-pdbe-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, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data is aggregated from multiple PDBe-KB partner resources and the response includes annotation type, per-residue scores, confidence metrics, group labels, and source URLs. It does not mention response size or pagination for large residue-level payloads, which is a notable gap for a multi-resource aggregation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that puts the operation and scope first and then the returned data. The enumeration of return fields is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; no filler or repetition.

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 compensates well by describing the returned fields and their origin. Both required parameters are covered by the schema, and the read-only nature is carried by annotations, leaving nothing critical an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions only the entity ID and never references pdb_id, so it adds essentially nothing about how the two parameters combine or constrain the result set.

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 ('Returns residue-level functional and biophysical annotations for a specified PDB Entity ID') and enumerates the kinds of annotations (SASA, hydrophobicity, disorder, flexibility, EM local resolution), which distinguishes it from siblings like sec_struct, var, and doms that also key off entity_id.

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?

Use is only implied by the purpose: call it with a PDB and entity ID when you want aggregated partner-resource annotations. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling alternative named (e.g., when to prefer var or sec_struct for a single annotation type).

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