ebi-pdbe-bind_sites_ent_bind_sites_id_entity_id_efd81d99

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data is ARPEGGIO-derived and the residue grouping is keyed by Bound Molecule ID. It says nothing about pagination, empty-result behaviour, or whether the entity must be a polymer, which are the remaining behavioural gaps.

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 and then the payload detail. It is slightly dense with metadata field names, but every clause carries information about what comes back, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so reasonably: it names the metadata fields, the per-ligand CCD ID and name, and the residue grouping structure. For a two-parameter read-only lookup this is close to sufficient; only the response envelope and empty-case behaviour are unstated.

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% for both parameters, and the schema already documents the 4-character PDB id and the mmcif molecule-number semantics of entity_id, including a numeric pattern. The description adds no further meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it returns ligand-binding site annotations for a specified PDB entity, and it enumerates the payload (Best Chain ID, Scaffold ID, interacting residue counts, CCD ID, name, residues grouped by Bound Molecule ID). That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as comp_intx, ligand-interactions, or bound_molecules, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The description never says to prefer this endpoint over ligand-interactions or comp_intx when the goal is per-entity binding-site detail, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a valid entity_id from a prior chains/molecules call.

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