ebi-pdbe-bound_molecules_bound_molecules_id_433acab7

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, non-destructive read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description does real work beyond that by disclosing the return payload in detail: Bound Molecule IDs like 'bm1', composition as covalently bound ligands with unique CCD IDs, and a concrete connectivity example ([“F1”,“F6”] meaning author_residue_number 1 and 6 in chain F are covalently bound). Annotations declare idempotentHint=false for what looks like a pure read, and the description neither explains nor contradicts that.

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 scope statement is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence is dense with useful specifics rather than filler. It is slightly long and the nested parenthetical examples take effort to parse, but every clause conveys substantive content about the returned structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining return values, and it does so well by naming the key fields and giving a worked connectivity example. The main remaining gap is behavior on an invalid or obsolete PDB ID and whether results are ever paginated or empty, which the agent cannot determine from this definition.

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 there is only one parameter, whose '4-character PDB id code' format is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing 'for a given PDB entry ID,' which conveys nothing the schema does not. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns information for all bound molecules for a given PDB entry ID, including carbohydrate polymers.' An agent knows exactly what subset of PDB data this yields. It stops short of 5 because it never names or contrasts the closely related siblings (bound_mibmiib, ligand_monomers, comp_in, ligand_sum), which all sound like ligand/bound-molecule lookups.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite roughly a dozen ligand-related sibling tools in the same server. The only hint is the phrase 'including carbohydrate polymers,' which implies a broader scope than a plain ligand list, but the agent must infer this. With this many near-duplicate ligand tools, the absence of routing guidance is a substantive gap.

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