ebi-pdbe-complex_complex_details_id_b0542507

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 real behavioral context beyond annotations: some identifier types are one-to-many, and result richness varies by id_type. It does not describe pagination or result limits.

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 purpose and followed by the key behavioral caveat. The enumeration of returned fields is justified because there is no output schema, and no sentence is wasted.

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 responsibly enumerates the returned content and covers multi-match behavior and identifier-type tradeoffs. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination or any result-size limits, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that id_type affects result cardinality and annotation richness—behavior not evident from the schema's flat list of four allowed 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 (Retrieve) and resource (information about macromolecular complexes) and enumerates the content covered (participants, stoichiometry, symmetry, etc.). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling complex_* tools such as complex_bmsc or complex_ppcpapc, so differentiation is left to the identifier-oriented name.

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?

Provides meaningful usage context by warning that UniProt/Rfam accessions or PDB IDs can match multiple complexes, and steering users toward pdb_complex_id for richer results. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling complex tools, but the identifier-type guidance is actionable.

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