ebi-pdbe-comp_in_comp_in_hetcode_e47e47bd

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context by saying the result includes entries where the component is standalone OR embedded in a larger entity, but says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or behavior for an unknown hetcode.

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 action and result type, then the scope qualifier. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could be folded into the first without loss.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a list of PDB entries) and the inclusion rule. Only pagination/bounding and empty-result behavior are missing, which are minor for this tool class.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description is circular ('Hetcode for the compound'). The description does add that the hetcode is a chemical component as defined in the PDB Chemical Component Dictionary, which clarifies the identifier namespace, but it gives no format or example values.

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 a list of PDB entries that contain the given chemical component'. It also scopes the semantics (standalone component vs. part of a larger entity), which separates it from a plain structure lookup. It does not name or differentiate against the many related hetcode siblings (ligand_sum, comp_intx, similar_ligands), so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent holding a hetcode who wants the PDB entries containing it. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as the ligand summary or interaction tools that also take a hetcode. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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