ebi-pdbe-complex_icic_id_6bdd9e61

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what the payload contains (PDB Complex IDs, representative structures, relationship types, shared vs. additional participants), but says nothing about result size, ordering, or why idempotentHint is false for what appears to be a pure lookup.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core verb+resource statement is front-loaded before the definitional detail. It could be tightened marginally, but every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the subcomplex/supercomplex distinction, and the shape of the returned fields, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is operational detail such as expected result volume or how the complex ID is obtained.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics of pdb_complex_id and the per-parameter baseline of 3 applies. The description slightly exceeds that by implicitly scoping the ID to a macromolecular complex whose composition drives the lookup, though it adds no format or provenance guidance.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Retrieve") with a specific resource ("related subcomplexes and supercomplexes") and then defines both terms, so an agent knows exactly what class of object comes back. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool (e.g., complex_details, bmsc, ppc/papc), which keeps it from 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 by "based on macromolecular composition" and the single required PDB Complex ID: call this when you have a complex and want composition-related neighbours. There is no statement of when NOT to use it, no prerequisite (e.g., where the complex ID comes from), and no pointer to alternatives for other kinds of complex relationships.

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