ebi-pdbe-complex_ppcpapc_id_72a20a8c

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are computed by PISA, span multiple structural instances, and include 5th/95th percentile aggregates — behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not cover error behavior for unknown IDs or result size.

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, purpose front-loaded and the property enumeration kept in a single clause rather than a bullet dump. The field list is long but each item is informative about the return payload, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 does a fair job of describing return fields and the percentile summary, which is the key completeness need here. It is still thin on input expectations (ID format) and on how this differs from adjacent complex-analysis endpoints in a large sibling set.

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 the single required parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or example for the PDB complex ID beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('PISA-calculated structural and energetic properties for structural instances of a macromolecular complex'), and enumerates the concrete fields returned. It does not distinguish itself from sibling complex tools such as complex_details, complex_bmsc or complex_ic, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which complex endpoint to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling complex endpoints (complex_details, complex_bmsc, complex_ic), no prerequisites, and no note on what a valid complex ID looks like. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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