ebi-pdbe-assembly_ent_assembly_id_f7cff679

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive behavioral content the annotations lack, including the full set of returned fields (molecular weight, entity types/names, chain mappings, copy counts) and the important caveat that in_chains contains struct_asym_id values rather than author chain IDs. That caveat prevents a real misinterpretation and goes well beyond the annotation surface.

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 operation and scope, followed by the return-field enumeration. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical caveat is well placed rather than buried at the end.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so thoroughly, enumerating each field reported per assembly. The remaining gap is behavioral scale detail — no mention of response size, pagination, or behavior for PDB IDs lacking assemblies — which is minor for a read-only single-parameter endpoint.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents pdb_id as a 4-character PDB id code. The description only restates 'specified PDB ID' without adding format, validation, or edge-case guidance, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns information for all assemblies of a specified PDB ID', then narrows to per-entity detail within each biological or author-defined assembly. The resource (assemblies) is distinct from sibling tools that cover chains, molecules, or interfaces, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by the resource scope — call it when you need assembly composition for a PDB entry — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as the chains or molecules endpoints. An agent must infer the selection condition from the tool name and description alone.

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